THE CHARLESTON STUDY

THE TELEVISION AUDIENCE 01’ TH!
NIXON~KENN£DY DEBATE!

M for {In any... a Flu o;
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
John Russell Rider
I963

 

uumummummmn’ilmnnmmmmnimu

3 1293 10587 0467

a.

I:

"" .' . t ‘ “o 1'
E i..‘bR54‘\A/

 
     

Q

 

“Litigan Sum
Ui‘ll v 6'5?!)

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

TEE CHARLES N STUDY:
TEE TELEVISION AUDIENCE OF TEE
T‘TIXOE‘I-KET‘EIC’DY DEBATES

presented by

JOHN R. RIDER

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements in:-

 

Ph' D ° deg]

Date l-Iay 17) 1963

 

“54'

'I ’

”A w M

h.

JUN 0 1152.3
MAGIC 2

JAN 1 '1 “1933

EAPMFEI‘EZM

 

ABSTRACT
TE! CHARLESTON STUDY

m TELEVISION AUDIENCE OF THE
NIXON-KENNEDY DEBATBS

by John R. Rider

2h; Problem

The problem of the Charleston Study was to provide an accurate
descriptive analysis of the impact of the Great Debates on a randomly
selected audience in Charleston, Illinois. This impact was to be
evaluated in terms of four criteria. These were: educational level

of respondent, family size, political preference, and media activity.

 

 

Methods, Techniques and Data Used

Three techniques were used for the purpose of collecting data

for the study. First a personal, face-to-face interview was held in
the home of each respondent two,days before the first debate; secondly,

telephone calls were made to respondents at the conclusion of each

of the first three debates, and third, a self-administered questionnaire
was mailed to each respondent at the conclusion of the fourth debate.

The completed questionnaires were coded, transferred to punched cards

and tabulated by machine.

John R. Rider

The data resulting from the study were divided into four parts:
(1) the effect of education, family size, political preference and
media index on the pre-debate audience, (2) detail concerning the
effect of these criteria on the audience over the period of the four
debates, (3) a comparison of the value judgments of the respondents
between the pre-debate audience and the post-debate audience, and
(4) value judgments as expressed in the comments of the respondents

as to their perceptions of candidates, subjects, issues and value of

the debate idea.

Major Findings 2;.ghg,Stugz

The findings suggest the continuation of a theory. This

theory is as follows: (1) Change of opinion in political broad-

casting is directly related to the amount of use the viewer makes of
the mass media; (2) Television programs, bz,themselves, are not as
effective in changing opinions, as are television and print media used
together; (3) Hhere controversey is concerned, the combined effect

of television and print media is much greater; (4) The use of print

media serves as an interpretive agent for the messages that have

reached the viewer from television.

I.

II.

III.

IV.

"hypodermic" effect.

John R. Rider

Conclusions

The Great Debates had only nominal interest for the Charleston

audience before they began.

At the actual time of the first debate there was high interest
r the second and

in the debates, but this interest declined fo

third debates. Community activities, such as sports events

and shopping habits were among the intervening variables which
The interest increased

contributed to the decline of interest.

although not so high as for

substantially for the fourth debate,
the first.
Education, media index and political preference were found to

be closely related to interest in and knowledge of the debates.

As a general rule, the higher the educational level, and the

higher the media index (media activity), the greater amount of

interest and knowledge may be expected.

Political preference appears to be importantly related to
conceptions of candidates. The debates appeared to change few

minds about voting intention, but did increase the number of

w the opponent in a more positive ("better")

persons who as
light.

The Great Debates had a "phenomenistic" rather than a

The Charleston Study could find no solid basis

John R. Rider

for a belief that a significant number of peeple changed their minds

about voting because of the debates. The issues were not clearly

discerned,.but the men themselves were. The greatest validity of the

Great Debates to the author was that they allowed two candidates for

the office of president to appear on an ecual basis; that is9 it was

not possible for the observer to attend to one candidate"s message

to the exclusion of the other. However, there is a great danger

in the continued use of this device. It might tend to reduce all

international tensions and domestic issues to the words of the Candi?

dates. Perhaps the voter will tend to vote for the image of the man,

rather than for the man that his record and past activities say he

is.

Capyright by

JOE-AV RUSSELL RIDER

1953

THE CHARLESTON STUDY
THE TELEVISION AUDIENCE OF THE

NIXON~KENNEDY DEBATES
by

John Russell Rider

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University

L

in partial fulfillment of the re
for the degree of

quirements
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Speech

1963

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PR‘PAC‘ e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e

PURPOSE AND METHOD

hthod of Gethering Dete

Speciel Conditione end Proceduree

TEE PIE-DEBATE AUDIENCE . .
Educetion . . . . e . .
Pmeily Size . . . . . .
Political Preference .
Edieindex.o....

smryeeeeeeee

THE AUDIENCE IN TRANSITION

The Effect of Viewing .

The Effect of Fenily Size

Effect of Politicel Preference

Effect of Media Activity

INILDENCE OF THE DEDATES ON VOTING

I! “uc.t1°n e e e e e
D, '“11’ 813. e e e e

Dy Politicel Preference

IV Hbdie Index

for

Anelyeie of

the

Date

97
97
97
100
100

CORGI-"s IONS O O O O O O O O O O 0

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . .

APPENDIX A -- Pereonal Responaea

APPENDIX B -- Questionnaire . . .

APPENDIX C -- Additional Tables .

APPENDIX D -- Additional Figures

BIBLIOGRAPHY

111

113
114
138
153
244

252

Table

10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

20

Effect
Effect
Effect
Effect
Effect
Effect
Effect
Effect
Effect
Effect
Effect
Effect
Effect
Effect
Effect
Effect
Effect
Effect
Effect

Effect

of

of

of

of

of

of

of

of

of

of

of

of

of

of

of

of

of

of

of

of

Education

Education

Education

Education

Education

Education

Education

Education

Family
Family
Family
Family
Family
Family

Family

LIST OF TABLES

Pre-Debate Audience

on

on

on

on

on

on

on

on

mdia ACtiVity . O O O .

Interest in Politics . .

Knowledge about Debates.

Interest in Debates. . .

Opinion about Debates. .

Lincoln-Douglas Debate

Knowledge .

Voting Intention . . . . . . . . .

Media Activity (Index) .

Size on Media Activity . . . .

Size

Size

Size

Size

Size

Size

on

on

on

on

on

on

Interest in Politics .

Knowledge about Debates

Interest in Debates. .
Opinion about Debates.
Lincoln-Douglas Debate

Voting Intention . . .

Knowledge

Political Preference on Media Activity. . . . .

Political Preference
Political Preference
Political Preference

Political Preference

iv

on Interest in Politics. .
on Knowledge about Debates
on Interest in Debates . .

on Opinion about Debates .

22
24
23
27
23
28
3o
32
33
34

155

152
36
37
40
41
42
44

 

19331 22222.
21 Effect of Political Preference on Lincolnwnouglas
Debate Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
22 Effect of Political Preference on Size of Family. . . . . 158
23 Effect of Political Preference on Level of Education. . . 158
24 Effect of Mbdia Index on Interest in Politics . . . . . . 46
25 Effect of Media Index on Knowledge about Debates. . . . . 47
26 Effect of Media Index on Interest in Debates. . . . . . . 49
27 Effect of Media Index on Opinion about Debates. . . . . . SO
28 Effect of Media Index on Lincoln—Douglas Debate Knowledge 53
29 Effect of Media Index on Voting Intention . . . . . . . . S4
30 Effect of Media Index on Size of Family . . . . . . . . . 159
31 Effect of Media Index on Education. . . . . . . . . . . . 160
Second Debate
32 Effect of Education on Viewing Second Debate. . . . . . . 161
33 Effect of Education on Knowledge about Debates. . . . . . 162
34 Effect of Education on Opinion about Debates. . . . . . . 163
35 Effect of Education on Interes: in Debates. . . . . . . . 165
36 Effect of Family Size on Viewing Second Debate. . . . . . 166
37 Effect of Family Size on Knowledge about Debates. . . . . 167
38 Effect of Family Size on Opinion about Debates. . . . . . 169
39 Effect of Family Size on Interest in Debates. . . . . . . 171
40 Effect of Political Preference on Viewing Second Debate . 172
41 Effect of Political Preference on Knowledge about Debates 173
174

“2 Effect of Political Preference on Opinion about Debates .

V

Table Page

43 Effect of Political Preference on Interest in Debates . . 175
44 Effect of Media Index on Viewing Second Debate. . . . . . 176‘
45 Effect of mdia Index on Knowledge about Debates. . . . . 177
46 Effect of Media Index on Opinion about Debates. . . . . . 179
47 Effect of Media Index on Interest in Debates. . . . . . . 180

48 Effect of Education, Family Size, Political Preference,
and Media Index on Baseball Knowledge . . . . . . . . . 182

Third Debate

49 Effect of Education on Viewing Third Debate .l. . . . . . 184
50 Effect of Education on Knowledge about Debates. . . . . . 185
51 Effect of Education on Opinion about Debates. . . . . . . 186
52 Effect of Education on Interest in Debates. . . . . . . . 187
53 Effect of Family Size on Viewing Third Debate . . . . . . 189
54 Effect of Family Size on Knowledge about Debates. . . . . 190
55 Effect of Family Size on Opinion about Third Debate . . . 192
56 Effect of Family Size on Interesu in Debates. . . . . . . 193
57 Effect of Political Preference on Viewing Third Debate. . 195.
53 Effect of Political Preference on Knowledge about Debates 195
59 Effect of Political Preference on Opinion about Debates . 197
50 Effect of Political Preference on Interest in Debates . . 198‘
51 Effect of Media Index on Viewing Third Debate . . . . . . 200
52 Effect of Media Index on Knowledge about Debates. . . . . 201
63 Effect of Media Index on Opinion about Third Debate . . . 203
54 Effect of Media Index on Interest in Debates. . . . . . . 204

vi

Table

65
66
67
68
69
70
71

72

73

74
75
76

77

78
79
80
81
82

83

Effect
Effect
Effect
Effect
Effect
Effect
Effect

Effect

of

of

of

of

of

of

of

of

Fourth Debate

Education on Viewing Fourth Debate. . . . . .

Education on Knowledge about Debates. . . . .

Family Size on Viewing. . . . . . . . . . . .

Family Size on Knowledge about Fourth Debate.

Political

Preference on Viewing Fourth Debate

Political Preference on Knowledge about Debates

Media Index on Viewing Fourth Debate. . . . .

Media Index on Knowledge about Debates. . . .

All Debates

Number of Debates watched by Education, Family Size,
Political Preference and Media Index. . . . . . . . .

Effect
Effect
Effect

Effect

Effect
Effect
Effect
Effect
Effect

Effect

of

of

of

of

of

of

of

of

of

of

Education

on Opinion of All Debates . . . . .

Family Size on Opinion of A11 Debates . . . .

Political Preference on Opinion of all Debates.

Media Index on Opinion of all Debates . . . .

Education

Education

Education

Education

Education

Education

First Debate
on Viewing First Debate . . . . . .
on Media Activity . . . . . . . . .
on Knowledge about Debates. . . . .
on Opinion about Debates. . . . . .
on LincolneDouglas Debate Knowledge

on Political Preference (Intent in

v°t1n8)aeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

vii

Page

206
207
208

239

214

216

226
227
228
229
230

230

Table

34
85
86
87
88

89

90

91
92
93
94
95

96

97

98

Effect of Education

Effect of Political

Effect of
Effect of
Effect of

Effect of

Political
Political
Political

Political

Knowledge . . . .

Effect of
EffeCte

Effect of
Effect of
Effect of
Effect of
Effect of

Effect of

Preference) .

Effect of

Effect of

Political

Political

on Evaluat

ion

Preference on

Preference

Preference

Preference

Preference

Preference

Preference

on

on

on

on

on

on

of Voting Effect. . . .
Viewing . . . . . . . .
lbdia Activity. . . . .
Knowledge about Debates
Opinion about Debates .

Lincoln-Douglas Debate

Evaluation of Voting

Education . . . . . . .

Media Activity (Index) on Viewing First Debate.

Media Activity on Knowledge about Debates . . .

Media Index on Opinion about Debates. . . . . .

Media Index on LincolneDouglas Debate Knowledge

Media Index on Voting Intention (Political

Media Index on Evaluation of Effect of Voting .

Media Index on Education. . . . . . . . . . . .

viii

Page

230
231
232
233

234

235

235
236
237
239
240

241

‘242

243

LIST OF FIGURES

§1_Education

 

 

mg
1 Viewing the Debates . . . . . . . . . . .
2 Knowledge of Origination of Programs. . .
3 Knowledge of First Speaker. . . . . . . .
4 Knowledge of Subject of Debates . . . . .
5 Estimate of "Best Job". . . . . . . . . .
6 Reading about Debates . . . . . . . . . .
7 Viewing Intent. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
By.Family_Size
8 Viewing the Debates . . . . . . . . . . .
9 Knowledge of Origination of Programs. . .
10 Knowledge of First Speaker. . . . . . . .
11 Knowledge of Subjects of Debates. . . . .
12 Estimate of "Best Job". . . . . . . . . .
13 Reading about Debates . . . . . . . . . .
14 Viewing Intent. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
gz'Politica1_Preferengg
15 Viewing the Debates . . . . . . . . . . .
16 Knowledge of Origination of Debates . . .
17

Knowledge of First Speaker. . . . . . . .
ix

246
247

248
61
62

249

65
66
68
69
7O

71

74
76
251

Figure

18
19
20

21

22
23
24
25
26
27

28

29
30
31

32

“caledze 0f SUbJeCte e e e e e e

E'tmte Of "Best JObNe e e e e e
Reading about Debates . . . . . .

Viewing Intent. . . . . . . . . .

£1 Media gees;

 

Viewing the Debates . . . . . . . . .

Knowledge of Origination of Debates

Knowledge of First Speaker. . . .
Knowledge of Subject of Debates .
Estimate of "Best Job". . . . . .
Reading about Debates . . . . . .

Viewing Intente e e e e e e e o 0

Estimate 2; Influence 23.22593;
3? Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3v Family Size. . . . . . . . . . o . . . . .
By Political Preference . . . . . . . . . . .

By kd 18 Index. 0 O O O O O O O 0 0 O O O 0 O

Page

78
BO

88
39
9o
93
95
96

98
99
101

102

REFERENCE TABLE I

Pre-Debate

Media Index

__3 Education size Preference

Table Table Table Table

1 Media Activity 1 9 16 x
2 Interest in Politics 2 10 17 24
3 Knowledge about Debates 3 ll 18 25
4 Interest in Debates 4 12 19 26
5 Opinion about Debates 5 13 20 27
6 Lincoln-Douglas 6 14 21 28
7 Voting Interest 7 15 x 29
(Education) x x 23 31
(Family size) x x 22 3O
(lbd ia index) 18 x x x

h

REFERENCE TABLE II

First Debate

Political
.___ Education Preference Media Index_

Table Table Table'
1 Viewing 78 85 92
2 Media Activity 79 86 x
3 Knowledge of Debates so 87 93
4 Opinion about Debates 81 88 94
5 Lincoln-Douglas Debate Knowledge 82 89 95
5 Political Preference 83 x 96
7 Estimation of Vbting Effect 84 90 97
8 Education x 91 98

 

xi

II

REFERENCE TABLE III

Second Debate

- Family Political
___ Education size Preference Media Index

Table Table Table Table
Viewing 32 36 4O 44
Knowledge 33 37 41 45
Opinion 34 38 42 46
Interest 35 39 43 47

‘

REFERENCE TABLE IV

Third Debate

I I'\ —%
Family Political

 

 

__i Education size Preference Media Index
Table Table Table . Table
Viewins 49 5.3 57 61
Knowledge 50 54 58 62
Opinion 51 55 59 63
Interest 52 56 6O 64

 

 

REFERENCE TABLE V

mm

======================:::: _V_
Family Political ‘
~————- Education size Preference JMedia Index

 

 

Table Table Table Table
""1“ ’ 6S 6 7 69 71
“”1“” 66 68 7o 72

 

Xii

H

REFERENCE TABLE VI

Figures

 
   

    

--. ._._.‘.____~ %m_~ 7 .._ Frfl....._ -»

  
     

_ ._ _ _fi w..._.... .— m...—

Eanily Political
Education size Preference Media Indeg

 

Table Table Table Table
Viewing 1 8 15 22
Knowledge 2 9 16 23
Knowledge 3 10 17 24
Knowledge 4 11 18 25
"Best Job" 5 12 19 26
Reading About 6 13 20 27
Viewing Intent 7 14 21 28
Influence on Voting 29 30 31 32

 

x111

THE CHARLESTON STUDY

Preface

In the fall of 1960, a series of events took place which
offered much opportunity for research into the impact of the political
use of the television medium. The events in question are the series
of television debates between Vice President Richard M. Nixon, Repub-
lican, and Senator John F. Kennedy, Democrat.

The fact of the occurrence of the debates, is, itself, important
to the life and history of the spoken word in America. At least two
"firsts" may be recorded as a result of these debates. Although many
Presidential candidates have at various times fulfilled the technical
qualifications for debating an issue or issues; that is, on a face-to-
face, formalized time basis, this was the first time that such a pheno-
menon had taken place on an all-network, completely pre-empted (on all
stations) level.

A second "first" was the special legislation enacted by Congress
which enabled the debates to be produced. The Congress, by joint reso-
lution, suspended for the period of the 1960 presidential and vice-
presidential campaigns the "equal opportunities" requirements of
Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1934 with respect to nominees
for the office of President and Vice-President. This made it possible

for the networks to grant, free of charge, broadcasting time to the

Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates of the Democratic and
Republican parties without having to do the same for candidates of
other parties.

lbny articles have appeared in the popular press, and 'a few
in the academic press concerning the development of the concept of the
Great Debates. Prom most of these articles the reader would get the
impression that the networks, on their own, gave birth to the idea of
the debates, and implemented them throughout. But, according to
Austin Presley, at least part of the credit should be given to the
American Forensic Association. According to Presley, President of the
American Forensic Association, the following events took place:1

In the summer of 1958, the AFA voted to seek to arrange a de-
bate between the presidential candidates in 1960. A committee was
formed for the purpose of providing continuity in this regard. A
resolution, however, that the SAA " . . . should join with other
professional speech organizations in calling upon the candidates for
the Presidency and other high public offices to meet in a public
debate during the campaign of 1960," was defeated in a session of the
Assembly's Executive Committee, the SAA, on the grounds that the SAA
(Speech Association of America) should not be involved in any political
activity.

The APA continued to support the idea, and wrote to all leading

candidates for nomination asking for their committment. Most of the

1Austin J. Presley, "The Presidential Debates and the Speech
Profession," QJS, XLVII (February 1961) pp. 60-64.

candidates responded quickly, with the exception of candidate Nixon.
Among the early responders were candidate Stevenson and candidate
Kennedy. (April 8, 1960)

On February 5, 1960, telephone conversations with CBS began,
and on March 10, 1960, Senator Magnuson introduced the Presidential
campaign Broadcasting Act, S.3l7.1 (S. J. Resolution 207, 86 Congress,
2nd Session), which was passed and became the basis for the network
programming. Then, when the debates were assured, the Committee on the
1960 Presidential Campaign offered its services to the networks or
their designated planners for technical advice. In the words of
Mr. Freeley, however, "The networks and candidates worked out‘details
without reference to the committee. If they had been contacted, they
would not have recommended the joint press conference format."2

At any rate, the debates were scheduled, were held, and were
discussed and evaluated by a great many persons, organisations,
scholars, and private citizens. Our purpose, in choosing the debates
for a major research effort, has been to provide detail to the sup-
positions and generalizations surrounding the use of television as a
political medium, and to study specifically these factors in light
of this specific 525322.9g,gg§g§s (the debates).

we shall test four generalizations concerning the mass audience.
They are: (1) selective perception is importantly related to value

Judgments of the candidates by the viewers; (2) Attention to and heavy

2Presley, 92, gig., p. 64.

use of media are importantly related to interest in and knowledge of
mass media content, (a special feature of this study is to study the
effect of family size on interest in debates); (3) Demographic features
of education and family size are importantly related to interest in
television; (4) Television is a prime source of (a) political knowledge
for the viewer and (b) effect on viewers. .

This generalization has caused much controversey. The Langs,
in 1956, in observing the 1952 elections, observed a difference be-
tween political role and performance on one hand, and personal image
on the other. They also observed that the intimacy credited to tele-
vision is a spurious concept, but that the public, the political
managers, and the producers (of TV) believed in it.3 The Langs felt
that TV may aggravate a societal tendency toward a pseudo-
personalizstion of social issues. That is to say, an assignment of
false or irrelevant responsibility for social issues to a person or
persons. In other words, the Langs felt that the use of television
to bring social-political issues before the public creates a false
emphasis on the individual responsibility of the candidate.

The lersths support this theory, and agree that "there seems
to be much support for the image theory of political perception, at

least in terms of the two candidates' relative images.”4 They also

 

.3Kurt Lang and Glayds Engel Lang, "The Television Personality
inzPolitics; Some Considerations," _QQ, XXII (Spring 1956), pp. 103-
3 Ps 109. ‘

l'Joaeph E. McGrath and Marion F, licGrath, "Effects of Partisan-
ship on Perception of Political Figures," £99, XXVI:2 (Summer 1962),
pp. 237.248, p. 246.

discovered that partisanship was the main factor in preference for
candidates. It should be pointed out that this study was based on

the replies of a gesIDpartisan group, groups of Young Democrats and
Young Republicans. It seems to this writer that this group identifica-
tion might introduce a greater bias than might normally be expected
from a random group.

An advertising agency study, by Cunningham and walsh, on the
campaign of Rockefeller and Barriman, discovered, "Television rates
equally with newspapers as the gggg’igportsnt news source about candi-
dates. (Prisnds, family, and associates ranked next, radio a substan-
tial third, magazines, campaign literature, and speeches in that order.)5

Tucker, in studying the 1956 Oregon Campaign, also asserted
that "TV has changed the course of campaigning."6 Schramm and Carter.

however, found that a political telethon was Egg,gg,effsctive political

 

£231 for Senator Knowland, although it made a "good show."7

Research related specifically to the Great Debates in the
matter of political use of the television medium is rather large.
Among the most significant research efforts were those summarized by

Rats and Feldman for the American Sociological Association.8 This

 

5Cunningham and Whlsh Agency, groadcasting, 56:12 (March 23,
1959) , PP. 84-86.

6Duane E. Tucker, "Broadcasting in the 1956 Oregon Campaign,"
£22£ggl_g§,nroadcasting, 3:3 (Summer 1959), pp. 225-243, p. 227.

7Hilbur Schramm & R. P. Carter, "Effectiveness of a Political
Telethon," :99, 23:1 (April 1959), pp. 121-127, p. 127.

8Elihu Katz and Jacob Feldman, "The Kennedy-Nixon Debates:
A Survey of Surveys," Studies in Public Communication, 4 (Autum.1962),
University of Chicago, Press.

analysis of 22 surveys in regard to the debates indicated that John 11.,~
Kennedy was the overwhelming "winner." They observed that the victory
in the first debate enabled him to nail down the support of doubting
Democrats. In their judgment, Nixon “won" the third debate on foreign
policy, and the second and fourth debates were very close.

The studies showed that issues were not decisive in the debates.
The analysts stated, " . . . no doubt that the debates were more
effective in presenting the candidates than the issues."

The surveys also showed that a sizsable proportion of-the
voting population,aspecially Democrats, felt that the debates helped
them to decide how to vote. Some of the studies showed that during the
course of the campaign as much as 20 percent of the electorate changed
from undecided to a candidate or from one candidate to another. This
finding, of course, is somewhat different than the theory of Lazarsfeld,
1n,1§g,ngpls's Choice, or Rita's Patterns 9;.Inf1uence might indicate.

In 1940, Lazarsfeld discovered that only eight percent of the
voters in a test area had been "converted“ to the other wide during
this campaign. (Radio and print media available.) Rats, in 1945,.
ingflbatsd an increasing skepticism.about the potency of the mass media.

It is the observation of this writer, however, that it is very
difficult to compare the effect of the ”Great Debates? with previous
political discussion about which there has been research for two
reasons: (1) Selective exposure, for the first time, was not possible
because both candidates shared the exposure period: and (2) The

viewers (voters) were forced to judge the candidates in light of their

comparative reactions to a common, specific stimulus (the questions of
the newsmen).

Of course, the voter could still, in light of his predispo-
sition, preconceptions and interpersonal relations networks, engage in
selective interpretation; i.e., he could evaluate the responses of
"his" candidate in a more positive way than those of the opponent. Such
possibilities are considered in the present study. Other factors to
emerge from the Katz & Feldman analysis were: a 60 percent viewing
audience for the first debate, (was never below 55 percent), the
audience, divided evenly between Nixon and Kennedy supporters, and
those who did not actually see the debates quickly heard about them
through discussion and newspaper reports. "Not more than 10 percent
of the population failed to learn about the debates within 24 hours,"
according to the analysts.

Carter's study9 in California suggested that: (1) Kennedy per-
formed better and profited more than Nixong (2) The debate format
bypassed perceptual defenses by the use of factual material; (3) The
audience wanted more time, only one subject for each debate, and
elimination of the interviewer panel of newamen, and (4) The least
liked debate was the first, and his respondents preferred a clash of

personalities.

 

9Richard P. Carter, "Some Effects of the Great Debates,"
Abstracts 2f,Pa2ers g£_§hg_American Sociological Association. 56th
Annual Session (1951), p. 63.

Krause,10 in Indiana, found that the debates significantly de-

creased Republican bias, but cross pressures and "concommitant in-
fluences blurred distinct lines of effect." White11 discovered that the

debates were most valuable to Kennedy because they filled in the image

3

of Kennedy as

it was reflected in other events of the campaign. Bow-

t the debates were most effective because of the

ever, white feels the
closeness of the election. He feels he has no evidence to support an
ot so

idea that the debates would have been so crucial in an election n

eria might be established

close. This writer fails to see what crit

aside from poll data, ig,advance, as to determine how close any

election might be.

The man who planned President Kennedy's debate appearances,

J. Leonard Reinsch, gave the following reasons for Kennedy's victory

on television:12

1. It broke down Republican°s charge that Kennedy was

immature.

Democrats who had wondered if Senator

2. It solidified
hoice to defeat the Vice-President.

Kennedy was the right c

gn workers, governors,
fighting candidate. It
Our people were inspired.

3. The first debate convinced campai
and others that we had a strong,
scared and shocked Republicans.

loSidney Krause, "Political Issues and the TV Debates,"

Abstracts, Ibid.

11Irving 8. White:
Debates," Abstracts, Ibid.

12"The Architect of a Triumph on Television," Broadcastigg
59:20 (November 14, 1960), p. 32.

"Research Report on the Kennedy-Nixon

The study done by the Langs13 remains for the writer the most

similar to the present one, and of those reviewed, the one with the
most detail.‘ The data of this study disagree at several points with

the Lang study, but this should be expected because of the types of

audiences under examination. The Langs studied students and others

in new York City, whereas the present study was done on the population

of a small midwestern city of 10,800 persons.
For example, the Lang study reported that respondents looked

forward to the debates as a "match of candidate's forensic skills."

In the present, such anticipation was not in evidence. In fact,

78 percent of the audience could not name the date of the first debate,

just tondays previous to its broadcast.
4 polled the members of the Committee gn_£hg

In

Austin Freeley1

1960 Presidential campaign immediately following the debates.

general, the respondents felt that Kennedy had made the greatest

political gain, although they felt that Nixon had a slightly better

job of debating in the third and fourth debates. Also, there was

almost universal dissatisfaction with the format of the debates. A

spokesman for the industry, Clark George,15 also agreed that the format

13Kurt Lang and Gladys Ethel Lang, "Ordeal by Debate," Public

9mm Mali! (Spring 1961).

14Austin J. Freeley, "Who won the Great Debates," a paper
Presented to the SAA convention, St. Louis, December 28, multilithed.

1SCIark George, "The Great Debates: Good TV" A paper
Presented to the central states Speech Association (Chicago, Illinois:

April 14, 1961).

10

could be improved, but added that the most significant consideration

have the broadcast take place (at all).

papers presented on the subject of the

VI. :0

Among the scholarly

debates were several which represent diverse points of view. (James

Robinson,16 after reflecting on the Great Debates, was led to the con-

sidential candidates is not

clusion that “television debating among Pre

Be based this view on.the

an element of rational electoral procedure."

idea that the joint appearances do not resemble the forensic occasions

and imposition of television debating skill as a

for a President,

criterion for a President would reduce "the number of people eligible

for the office."

N’ebergall17 agrees with Robinson, and raises the question,

”what is there in the Office of the Presidency which is relevant to

skill in debating " He further believes that the relationship be-

tween the two skills (good debater and good president) ought to be

proved and not assumed.

Ted Jackson18 has pointed out some interesting parallels

between the Parr-Sullivan feud and the Great Debates, and also

suggests that the Great Debates were debates. (This is not shared

 

"TV and the Blections--The Great Debate:
1 member at the Central States Speech
April 14, 1961), dittoed.

16James A. Robinson,
Good Politics " Remarks as a pane
Association heting (Chicago, Illinois:

17Roger B. Nebergall, personal letter to the author, May 10,

1961.

18Ted Jackson, "The Third Nixon-Kennedy Debate," A paper pre-
sented at the Central States Speech Association Mbeting (Chicago,

Illinois: April lb, 1961), mimeographed.

11

with all members of the speech fraternity.) He further develops a

forensic rationale for giving the nod to Mr. Kennedy for the third

debate. (The board of the SAA for the Committee £25.5hg 1960 Presi-
dential Cagpaigg gave the debate to Nixon by a 13 to 9 margin.)

In this study, we will consider Independent and Dependent

Independent variables, or predictors, are education,

variables.
Dependent variables,

family size, political preference and media index.

or things gg.bg,predicted, are interest in politics, opinion about the

debates, Lincoln-Douglas debate knowledge and voting intent.

Purpose 5591 Method

The purpose of this study is Egg to determine the "winner" of

the Great Debates, nor is it to analyze the content of the debates.

The sole purpose is to provide a descriptive analysis or documentation

of the impact of the debates on the Charleston audience, in light of

their responses to the questions asked by interviewers in person, by

telephone, and by mail.

Method 9_f_ Gathering Data

the reader to understand the method used in the

In order for

study, a flow chart is provided on the following page.

The universe for the study was the population of Charleston,

Illinois. The sagple was selected by random area probability tech-

aerial photograph of the city, twenty-five

niques. working from an

Seographic areas, each containing approximately the same number of

12

FLOW CHART 01" TESTING PROCEDURE

 

 

UNIVERSE

 

285

SAMPLE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

mwnmn mono—E 5.5...» Hose":
umvmnm Umwmne unamnm unvmnm
eon. unr con. Hun: can. NHmn
moan. mounba .6: :w:
A. .5: _. .. ES. mm. 212 7 E on 218 8,892.. .
m n 38%? 0an «:95
Dammm>m5=mwnm _ ME ME . Zane ‘
~380an Eozn
Hnnmniha “fin Lana

 

 

 

 

 

 

13

homes, (50-70), were selected. This selection was done with
Mr. Charles Harper, executive director of the Charleston Chamber of
Commerce.

The interviewers were fifteen junior and senior college stu-
dents from hcmrray College in Jacksonville, Illinois, and ten from
Eastern Illinois university in Charleston. 0n the day of the first
interview, each interviewer was instructed to get twelve interviews
in his area. By dividing the number of homes by twelve the inter-
viewer determined "n." He then sought information at every nth home
in his area. The total number of homes in the completed sample was 285.

In order to get maximum access to homes for interviewing, a news
item was placed on the front page of the local paper, the Charleston
Courier, to the effect that Charleston had been selected for study by
"Grass Roots Research," a name which the author had coined. 0n the
day of interview, each interviewer wore a special badge which contained
the words: GRASS ROOTS RESEARCH, CHARLESTON, ILLINOIS, SEPTEMBER 24,
1960, NAME . Each interviewer was dressed well but
conservatively, the men wearing dark clothing with white shirt and tie,
and the women with heels and hose. Immediate and very cooperative
access was given to all interviewers. many respondents in seeing the
badge pinned to the interviewer remarked that they had seen in the
paper that the team was going to be there.

A special sample was taken for examination for the first
debate. This sample was taken by using g_(random) names in the
‘Charleston telephone book. (Also, the service clubs and the faculty

of Macmrray College were questioned concerning their perception of

14

the debates. The responses of the club members and the faculty were
not used in the study.. They were not felt to be legitimate for the

stated purpose of the present study.)

Special Conditions ppg,Procedures for Analysis prEEE'Qgpg

The respondents for the second, third, fourth, and post debate
contacts are drawn from the original, pre-debate sample. The first
contact, pro-debate, was a personal interview with the respondent, (an
adult) who was willing to be interviewed. There were 103 men, and 182
women in the sample.

The sample for the first debate was drawn from the Charleston
telephone book. The number of interviewers had been reduced to 12 and
in order to reach a proper sample within a reasonable time limit, this
smaller sample was drawn. There were 166 persons in this group. The
samples for the second and third debate were drawn from half of the
original, pro-debate group. Half of the pro-debate group were drawn
for each debate. For the final debate, a questionnaire was mailed to
all 285 respondents of the pre-debate sample. As approximately 30
letters were returned unclaimed, or no such address, the total expected
return was 255. The actual return was 70 or 31 percent.

A natural or expected bias must be expected in the answers to
the fourth debate. This bias will appear in the exercising of an option
to return the questionnaire or not. A person who had not seen the
debate might not elect to return it if he thought it would not be help-
ful, or that he would appear not to have participated in an exercise

important to the author. Upon examination of the data, however, it

15

appears that the percentage of respondents who indicated they had
watched the debate closely approximates the estimate of the national
audience, and a legitimate spread of educational levels is represented
in the group that returned the questionnaire.

Having thus set forth the basic rationale, purpose, and method,
and a brief review of testimony, we move to a consideration of the
data resulting from the Charleston §£ggz, This information will be
divided into four parts. The first will provide detail concerning the
effect of education, family size, political preference, and 22£l£.$2§£§}9
on the pre-debate audience, (2) detail concerning the effect of these
same criteria on the audience in transition, that is during the debates,
(3) a comparison of the value judgments of the respondents between the
pre-debete audience and the post-debate audience, (4) value judgments
as expressed in the comments of the respondents as to their perceptions
ofcandidates, subjects, issues, and their estimate of the value of
the debate idea.

The procedure by which the households studied were selected was
spelled out in the Preface. It should be pointed out at this time that
the audience was composed of 62 families where the respondent had a
grade school education, 132 families where the respondent had a high
school education, and 91 families where the respondent was

19Media index refers to a numerical sum of the points at which
the respondent attempted media activity such as: .multiple radio or
television receivers, newspaper and news magazine subscriptions,
ability to identify specific radio or television news and public
affairs programs.

16

college-oriented.20 These basic groups should be kept in mind when
evaluating their responses to the questions. In order to be as accurate
as possible, percentages are used throughout in order that a breakdown
into categories within the broader concepts of education, family size,
political preference, and media index could be contained for each con-
tact period, and only for those who did respond. Where the result can-
not be projected to the whole population, it is so indicated. Also,
percentages can be used to compare group with group inasmuch as an

equal number of respondents was not forthcoming.

While we are interested in the total audience reaction to the
debates, our primary interest is in the emerging patterns of influence
which our four criteria play in such events.

The response to telephone calls to half of the original sample
on the second and third debates was very low due to special circum-
stances. 0n the second debate, only 42.9 percent of the audience was
even reached during the calling period, thereby indicating they were
not at home during the broadcast. The reason for this phenomenon,
which placed the viewing audience for Charleston well below the national
average for this debate, was the day of the week,Friday, and the hour,
6:30 CST, and the stores in Charleston are open on Friday night. A
vast majority of the people, 69.6 percent, apparently chose to do
their week-end shopping or engage in some other activity on Friday

night, thereby ignoring the debates.

 

20The term "college-oriented" is used to denote a respondent
who has attended college, is now attending (married or graduate
student) or is a college graduate.

17

The audience for debate number three was correspondingly small.
However, more than 65 percent of those who were home watched the
debates. The major reason again was the hour, 6:30 p.m. CST, and the
playing of the first home high school football game. For this debate,
the audience appeared to attend the football game or attend to some

other activity rather than attend to the debates.

ng_Prg-Qpbate Television Audience

The composition of the television audience in Charleston is
important as a background to the study of the impact of the Great
Debates. This analysis is divided into five parts: breakdown by
education level, family size, political preference, media index, and

a summary.

Education

gggip’activitz. The effect of education on media activity is
Plainly discerned, but no significance may be attached to television
or radio ownership by educational level. The ownership level is very
high for all groups. (See Tables 1 and 2.)

More than half of the families in Charleston do not take a

news magazine of any type, and just over sixteen percent subscribe to

' QED—1‘11 d_ef_i_pg§_ news magazine (Time, Newsweek, Q.§. News Q World

522225). The college group ranks highest in subscription of this type

of magazine, and also ranks highest in the percentage of people who

subscribe to the local paper and a metropolitan paper.

E

One set

Two or more

no set

Newsweek, Time
gage NEW. &

Wbrld Repoft
Other

None

Tho or more

Courier (only)
Dec. or Matt.

Metropolitan
(only)

18

TABLE 1

EFFECT OF EDUCATION 0N MEDIA ACTIVITY

, ' ' Grade School High School College __gTota1 p__
. Per Per

Number Cent Number

38
21

3

49

39
0

Per

dio Ownership
61.2 75 58.6 43

34.0 52 40.6 48
4.8 1 .8 4

News mgazines

4.8 18 13.6 27
11.4 19 14.4 16
79.0 85 64.4 36

4.8 10 7.6 12

Newspaper Subscription
62.9 77 58.3 33

0 2 1.5 3

1.6 2 1.5 2

(Continued)

Cent Number

Per

45.3
50.5
4.2

30.0
17.5
39.4
13.1

36.3

3.2

2.2

 

156

121

48
42
170

25

149

5

Cent Number Cent
M

54.8
42.4
2.8

16.8
14.8
59.6

8.8

52.2

1.8

1.8

301

None

Courier 6
Metropolitan

Identified*

Not identified

All Programs
Local programs

ane

*
Identified

Not identified

M

19

TABLE 1 (Continued)
EFFECT OF EDUCATION 0N MEDIA ACTIVITY

grade School High School College

Per Per Per
Number Cent Number Capt Number Cent

Newspaper Subscription (Continued)
8 12.9 8 6.1 1 1.2

14 22.6 43 32.6 52 57.1
Television Egg; Programs
33 53.2 96 72.7 82 91.1
29 46.8 36 27.3 8 8.9
3.3.11.9. M Interest
8 12.7 14 10.7 14 15.4
17 27.0 56 42.7 30 33.0
38 60.3 61 46.6 47 51.6
gpplig.Affairs Programs QEDTelevision

17 27.4 68 51.5 61 67.0
45 72.6 64 48.5 30 33.0

Total

Per

Number Cent

17
109

211

73

36
103
146

146
139

6.0
38.2

74.6
25.4

12.6
36.2

51.2

51.2

48.8

* .
Respondent mentioned pz.name one or more public affairs programs (or
newscasters or channels at specific times). .

Ha

20

TABLE 2

EFFECT OF EDUCATION ON INTEREST IN POLITICS

 

grade School High School College Total
Per Par Par Par

Number Cent Number Cent Number Cent Number Cant

Convention Watchipg

Witchad:
both 42 67.8 107 80.5 86 95.6 235 82.5
Republican 0 0 ' 2 1.5 O 0 2 .7
Democratic l 1.6 2 1.5 l 1.1 4 1.4
Neither 19 30.6 22 16.5 3 3.3 44 15.4
Participation _i_r_1_ W (M
Participation 4 6.5 12 8.7 9 9.9 25 8.6

Nb participation 58 93.5 126 91.3 82 90.1 266 91.4

k

21

Throughout the analysis, level of education appears to be a
valid determinant of media activity or access. There is one abrupt
break in the pattern. The high school group indicated more interest
in local news programs than the college-oriented group. In general,
however, the higher the education level of the respondent, the higher

the media activity level that may be expected.

Interest ip'politics. It is very difficult to assess interest
in politics on the basis of viewing the national political conventions,
because we have no basis for judging whether the viewing is done:

(1) because nothing else was on, (2) because the conventions are of
the nature of a "spectacular," or (3) because of an avid interest in
political programs.

The data (Table 2) indicate that eighty-two percent of the
audience watched both national conventions. A greater percent of the
college group watched both conventions than did the other two groups.
As far as actual participation in politics is concerned, all groups

report an overwhelming negative response.

Knowledge gpgp£_ggpgpgp, The great majority of the respondents
did not know very much about the debates. (See Table 3.) Only twenty-
one percent knew when the first debate was scheduled, six percent knew
the schedule of the other debates, seven percent knew any of the con-
ditions of the debates, and only four percent knew the subject of the
first debate. Again, however, the level of education has a direct

relationship to knowledge of the debate in every case.

EFFECT OF EDUCATION ON KNOWLEDGE ABOUT DEBATES

Knew

Did not know

Knew

Did not know

Knew

Nb answer (0)

Knew

Did not know

_~

grade-School

22

TABLE 3

Per Per

Schedule g§,First Debate)
5 8.2 24 18.2 33
56 91.8 108 81.8 58
Schedule 9.; _0_t_1_1_e_r_ Debates
O 0 5 4.3 12
59 100.0 111 95.7 73
Conditions 2; Debates
l 1.7 6 4.5 13
59 98.3 126 95.5 78

Subject 2; Debate
1 .6 4 3.0 7

61 98.4 128 97.0 84

High School College

Per

Number Cent Number Cent Number Cent

36.3

63.7

14.1

85.9

14. 3

85.7

7.7

92.3

Total

Per

Number Cent

62
223

17

268

20

265

12

273

21.8

78.2

6.0
94.0

7.0

93.0

4.2

95.8

23

Interest ip_debates. Apparently there was only nominal in-
terest in the debates before they began. Sixty percent of the viewers
planned to see the debates (80 percent actually did). Education is a
valid indication of level of interest. (See Thble 4.)

very few intended to ask outsiders, and only fifteen percent
had talked about the debates. Level of education again was closely
related to level of interest.

This information is somewhat surprising since all the print
media, and all the broadcast media had devoted much time and space to
the forthcoming event. Also, the interviews were conducted just two

days before the first debate.

Qpinion ppppp_ggpgppp, A positive correlation is revealed be-
tween level of education and willingness to suggest a purpose for the
debates. Although more than half of the audience did ppp.suggest a
purpose, the college group was by far the highest in response, followed
by the high school group, then the grade school group. (See Table 5.)

Almost half the viewers felt that the debates would make no
difference in voting, and less than twenty percent of all viewers were
able to identify the networks as paying for the debates. The highest
percentage, group~wise, was for the college group. Two-thirds of the
viewers thought the debates were a good idea, and again level of

education was a significant criterion.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate knowledge. In order to provide a test

of another dimension, the respondents were asked two questions in

24

TABLE 4

EFFECT OF EDUCATION ON INTEREST IN DEBATES

 

 

Yes
No

Not sure

Yes

No

Yes

No

Some
Little

None

M

grade School High School College

 

Per Per Per
Number Cent Number Cent Number Cent

 

Intended Watching
21 33.9 77 68.3 75 82.4
18 29.0 25 19.0 8 8.8
23 37.1 30 22.7 8 8.8

Intended to Ask Outsiders

7

 

l .7 5.3 11 12.0

61 98.3 125 94.7 80 88.0
M 23.9515. Debates

2 3.3 17 12.9 26 28.5

60 96.7 115 87.1 65 71.5
mg, £3393; Debates

7 11.3 21 15.9 32 35.2

8 12.9 41 31.0 26 28.6

47 75.8 70 53.1 33 36.2

Total
Per
Number Cent
173 60.7
51 17.9
61 21.4
19 6.7
266 93.3
45 15.8
240 84.2
60 21.1
75 26.3

150 52.6

     

Answer

No answer

Yes

No
1hybe
Doubtful

Did not know

Candidates
Parties

Networks

Good
Net good

Did not know

M

25

TABLE 5

Per Per

or... ' Shoolcwig‘h Scholw W Cg-

EFFECT OF EDUCATION ON OPINION ABOUT DEBATES

Per

Number Cent Number Cent Number Cent

13
49

25

17

29

25

21.0 59 44.7

79.0 73 55.3

Difference ip.Votigg

9.7 10 7.6
40.3 56 42.4
11.3 27 20.5
11.3 13 9.8

27.4 26 19.7

Paxyent for Debates

 

0 2 1.5
6.5 26 19.7
9.7 15 11.4

Debate_1§ea
46.8 88 66.6
12.9 16 12.2
40.3 28 21.2

What ip'Pugpose 2; Debates

67
24

42
17
13

12

15

73.6

26.4

16.7

”46.1

18.7
14.3

13.2

18.7

37.3

79.1
4.4

16.5

Total
Per
Number Cen§_

139 48.8
146 51.2
23 8.0
123 43.2
51 17.9
33 11.6
55 19.3
2 .7
47 16.5
55 19.3
189 66.3
28 9.8

68 23.9

 

26

regard to the Lincoln-Douglas debates. In response to both questions,
two-thirds of the respondents were able to give a correct answer. On
both questions, the college group exceeded the gross average, whereas

the other two groups fell below it. (See Table 6.)

gppgpg_intention. Thirty-seven percent of the audience de-
clared themselves to he undecided, and thirteen percent refused to
answer. The undecided group was the largest group in each educational
category, followed in descending order by Nixon supporters, Kennedy
supporters, and the refusees.

Half of the respondents were either undecided or refused to
divulge their affiliation. (See Table 7.) Since, relatively, it is
more likely the college-oriented group would be pro-Kennedy, and
since the college group is probably in a higher income group thereby
pro-Nixon, eggppfpggpppppp_may exist, therefore producing a high

percentage of those who were undecided or refused to divulge their

affiliation.

Ehgjp,]pgp§_(Table 8). An index level of 5~6 is reported for
the largest number of viewers. The 7-8 group is close behind,but the
Percentage of persons in the other groups break sharply away. The
break point appears to be between indices of 6 and 7. From indices 1
through 6, level of education as an indication is inverted, and from
indices 6 through 11, it changes completely; however, in both cases,
level of education is importantly related to media index. The higher
the educational level of the respondent, the higher his media index

will be.

27

TABLE 6

EFFECT OF EDUCATION ON LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE KNOWLEDGE

grade Schoof Higfi School College Total
Per Per Per Per

Yes
No

Did not know

Yes
No

Did not know

33

22

40

15

Number Cent Number Cent

 

Different
53.2 82 62.1
11.3 19 14.4
35.5 31 23.5

gplg_Here
64.5 89 67.4

11.3 5 3.8

24.2 38 28.8

Number Cent

73 80.2
8 8.8
10 11.0
84 92.3
3 3.3
4 4.4

 

Number Caps.

188 66.0
34 12.0
63 22.0

213 74.7
15 5.3
57 20.0

 

M

II

28

TABLE 7
VOTING INTENTION

 

__,__ _..___. _,_... . _.._ _.

_.... u—h“._._ “_ u. H” 3

High School College Total

Per Per
Nugger Cent Number Cent

   

 

Per Per
Number Cent Number Cent

Vetipg Intent

Nixon 18 29.0 41 31.0 26 28.6 85 29.9
Kennedy 8 13.0 22 16.7 23 25.3 53 18.6
Uhdecided 28 45.0 52 39.4 28 30.8 108 37.8

13.0 17 12.9 14 15.3 39 13.7

Refused 8

 

TABLE 8

EFFECT OF EDUCATION ON MEDIA INDEX

Grade School yggh School College Total
Per Per Per

Per
Nugber Cent Number Cent Number Cent Number 0325

 

 

 

 

_

 

Index Level
One-two 5 8.1 3 2.3 0 0 8 2.8
Three-four 18 29.0 25 19.0 6 6.6 49 17.2
Five-six 28 45.1 45 34.0 20 22.0 93 32.6
Seven-eight 8 13.0 43 32.6 37 40.6 88 30.9
Nine-ten 3 4.8 14 10.6 22 24.2 39 13.7

Eleven plus 0 O 2 1.5 6 6.6 8 2.8

—

29

were:

Media activigp. There does pg; appear to be any basis
A similar, high-saturation

to assume

f family size on media activity.

appears for all groups, and

an effect 0

level for radio and television ownership

ne. (See Tables 9 and

again, more than half do not take any news magazi

10.)

The data support the previous findings

Knowledge about debates.

ut debates. The audience did not know

in the matter of knowledge abo

appear to be much interested in them.

very much about the debates, or

There is no correlation between family size and knowledge about the

debates. (See Tbble 11.)

Interest ip_the debates. There is no correlation between in-

terest in the debates and family size. There appears to be nominal

interest in the debates for all groups. (See Table 12.) A decline in

viewing intention is noted, however, within the larger families.

Qpinion about debates. There is some indication that family

an effect on opinion about the debates. The highest

size does have

(by more than twenty percent) percentage of persons who gave a purpose

fell in the six-or-more family size group. Also the

for the debates

highest percentage of those who were able

six-or-more group had the
to identify the networks as paying for the debates. Thissame group had
the highest rating of those who thought the debates were a good idea.
It is suggested that the larger the family, the more likely the

childrens' age may encompass the grade levels where the debates were

EH>HHU< <Ho§ 20 ”NH“ *49‘“ to “Quit”

If g~a<u-l

3O

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

3.2.3.88 . I
a.a~ a o.o~ a o.“ e «.m, N o.- om n.e m once so ask
n.nn n. ~.me o. m..o mm w..o o. «.mo mm o.on a. «com
~.: m OKN OH nKH 0H NA: 0 add m ~.m~ a wag—“5
a... m o... . o.e. o o... .. m.na a. . n..~ o .mwmm.» cauom e coo:

. .05.: £00325!
awesome: 2.62
a .5 N c .n N o o o .n n r. .q u use:
Néc 2. 5.3 g o.on m~ wfio RN H.0m m~ 04¢ a one... no a
e.oe N. m.ne a. a... m. ~.on Nm n.oo on m.en N. so. a
m.e...coo om...
~.m n m.m N m.¢ m o. m ~.m~ e one:
o o o o c a one! so a
o.oo~ KN o.~m an n.0m mm n.~a on «.03 on m.~m mm use a
. musmwomso acamu>efioh
IuInuo .oz , uoeo .oz uaoo .oz memo .oz umoo .oz meme .6.- I
I... M. I... I... I... h...
o I]: n .1: e II: n ‘1: ~ a II:

 

~9H>Hao< «Home 26 when menses mo you

a 5:8

7‘

EH

tHk’HS‘ an! 2° ”NH“ *uHH:<h ho humbflhn

A‘OIIIINUPIAVHVV a 5“!“

31

 

 

 

 

 

5584 an! .5 NNHM Hugh 8 Human

$055808 a Human.

 

o..m o. a... .o~ o.ne aw o.mm mm a... on o.~m .. Immmmmmmwwmummm
o.mo .. o.oe .N. ..om «n ..ee o~ o.nn ea o..e o. o...aoa.om
.mmmmummm.mmmumm«.mmmmmm A
...n m. ..en oN m..e .~ e.om on e... co o.«. 3. one:
o..~ . ..mm m. o.ne m~ o.nm Ha m..m an n..~ o .s..»... auuoa
a... e «.0. e m.e n o.m. e n... «a ... N .a..»... mac
. . g .mmmm 3.5.
n... m o..~ o o.e~ a. o.e~ .. e.- a. a... o. .caua.oa no. cases
a... - a... o~ «.m. me ~... ~e o... oo n.en ~a commaoooom
. . . .mmmmmmmmdummm_mmmmmmmmmm .
..o. a. e.~m a. a... e. o.nn .~ o... .n o.on a. nose...
. . . nouufla d wouuaoo
..n a a.» n o.. . e.n w o.. m ~.. ~ oooz
Q ..~ . e.~ H e.« ~ . o n.e . ocoaao.ouo.m
o ..~ . n.m ~ e.n ~ o o .oo.m no .ooo
o.mm a. ..en o~ ..mo on ~.em ~n e.ne em n.om e . .uaeoou
,. _ . 3 g
”mmmwwwnmmmvw,oeoo «on some .om usoo .oz, ucoo .om ueoo .oz III.
memo . . John . I .. meme . . ne.—n . «emu . . new .

32

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N.nw MN 52; mm a ad on .- nJm an ado nu n.mu nN 0!
cf: a m6 m $3 a n.» n o5 a n3 a new
some...oao..m mooaoaaom
N.m H m.w~ N n N.MN ea m.o~ «A N.m~ m one!

o ¢.m N o o N.~ a n.¢ a umuuoaem
o o o o n .~ ~ o 53325.
n.0a 0N s.nh mN Nm «.32. m.» c.oh 00 $40 an Juan
_ _ .dwwnuuez cauusu>aoo
been 6: ucoo 6.. 9.8 .oz 8.0 6,. soon 62 sumo 6:
.usm man man . mom new mom
0 n e m N a

 

 

menu—HA8 2H Emmy—EH 2° uNHw ugh NO HOE”

0." mafia.

33

 

O.¢m on

 

98. 3 or; an 5.... in To. R ode. «N .86. so:
. o e.m ~ n.n n n.n ~ o.o n o seen
.mqummm.mmummm
n..m - o.eo mm m.eo on o.no on ~.no a. e.om o. sees so:
an». n o.n ~ ..n m o.n n e.o e n.n~ n oun-
mmmmmmmmmm.mmummm
o.~m nu ~..o mm m.eo an o.oo. on o... o. ~.no o~ zoos so:
n.. ~ e.o. e an n e e.» . e.e a noes
. .48.. g n .Ieflfl
Q... .~ a..e on n.~m .e e.oe an ..eo en a... n. sons so:
ab- o o.». . n..~ o. o.n. m n.an o~ ~.- n sues
mmwo .oz oooo .oz oeoo .oz beau .oz oeoo .oz oooo .om II.

 

 

 

unf‘aac I‘F IIFIIIIIIII‘- I! «I'll IIII

NH ”.Hnl‘."

 

34

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a..n ca N.No NN N..n on N.en Nm m.an no o.en N. oeoz
area m. m.eN o o.nN n. n.om a. H.ma m. N.NN m canons
are. e n.m. n e.NN n. «.m. o ..om nN N.NN n «sow
. ooooe coax
n..m NN o.mm an c... we N.mm mm a.mo mo o..m NH oz
n.». m N.o~ o oyaN N. w.o a o.o. ea a.m. e .oN
. H .uuo..ooo.mmm
e.oo mN e.Nn NN n.oN n. N.wa a. o.oH e. e.NN o .oo. com
a «LN . n.m n o.NN a. ..eN oN ..ea e oz
o.om a. Npme a. open an n.on mm o.an oe open N. .oN
. mouunoumu a .
ueoo .om omen .oz oaoo .oz oeoo .oz oeoo .oz oeoo .oz
us.— we.— Hem mum new we.—
o n e n N .

museums an amueuuru no name Nunmem so Hummus

N.— mania.

35

discussed at school and shared at home. Also, since there were prob-
ably a greater number of opinions regarding the pre-empting of regular
programming, there was a greater willingness to express an opinion
concerning them.

There is no clear-cut indication of the effect of family size
onlvottflg“intention, but there are some interesting indications of

preference: (See Thble 15.)

Qpientstion Zamily §ize

Nixon (38%) Four
Kennedy (37%) Six or more
undecided (48%) Five

Refused (18.9%) Five

(in order of highest percentage)

Political Preference

gpgip,activity. .Nore Democrats take news magazines and local
and metropolitan newspapers than do any other group. They would
leelr to be more print media minded than other groups.

Republicans could identify more television news programs than
other groups. The Refused group was second, Independents third, and
Democrats last. In radio news, however, the Democrats led in general
news orientation, followed by Republicans, Independents, and Refused.
Th0 Refused group led in interest in local news, followed by Democrats,

Independents, and Republicans. (See Table 16.)

36

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a... m a... . o.o. o ..o. o ..e. n. n.o N oououou
a... n ..me a. «.mm o. a... .N ~.om on o.Ne o oooaoooee

o..n o. n.m. m a... o. m.n. o a... n. o... e Nooeueu

can a a... . a... NN CNN 2 TN MN CNN o 8e...
. acumen unuuo>

oIeoo .oz .56 6,. ocoo 6: .50 .oz .50 .oz oaoo 6: I
mum . mom mom mom new mom

Jill InI... IeIl InmI IINII IJII

ZOHHZMHZH quHO> 2O MNHm NHHZdN MG HOMMMN

n~ Hun<fi

EFFECT OF POLITICAL PREFERENCE ON MEDIA ACTIVITY

37

TABLE 16

 

 

 

Republican Democrat Independent Refused or
no answer
Per Per Per Par

 

One set

Two or more

ane

One set

Two or more

None

The or more

Courier
DOC. or htte

lbtropolitan

_¥

79

46
38

13
10
54

46

Television Ownership

92.9 50 94.3
0 O O
7.1 3 5.7
gpgip,0wnership
54.1 24 45.3
44.7 28 52.8

1.2 1 2.9

Neps magazines

15.3 13 24.5
11.8 11 20.8
63.5 22 41.5
9.4 7 13.2

Newspaper Subscription

54.1 25 45.5

0 O O

O 2 3.6
(Continued)

93

57
38

13
13
67

50
4
1

94.9

5.1

58.2
38.9
3.9

13.3
13.3
68.3

5.1

51.0
4.1

1.0

45

28

17

26

28

Number Cent Number Cent Number Cent Number Cent

93.8

6.1

58.3
35.4
6.3

18.8
16.7
54.1

10.4

54.9
2.0
3.9

EFFECT OF POLITICAL PREFERENCE ON MEDIA ACTIVITY

Courier 6
btropolitan

Ident if ied

Not identified

All programs

Local programs

None

ldent if ied

Not identified

—_.._..

38

TABLE 16 (Continued)

 

Republican Democrat Independent Refused or
no answer
Par Par Per Per

W Subscription (Continued)

5

34

63
22

13
27
44

glevision Public Affairs Programs

46
39

5.9

40.0

74.1

25.9

15.5
32.1
52.3

54.1
45.9

3

25

44
9

 

20
25

38
15

5.5

45.4

51.8

48.2

37.7

47.2

71.7
28.3

Number Cent Number Cent Nugber

10

34

Tglevision News Programs

70
28

51

57

Cent Number Cent

10.2

34.7

71.1
28.8

11.7
36.7
52.6

47.2

52.8

16

35

14

20

25

21

28

7.8

31.4

71.4
28.6

8.2
40.8
51.0

42.9
57.1

39

The Democrats showed more interest in public affairs programs,

in the print media, and generally in broadcast media.

Interest ip,politics. The Independent group reported a higher
percentage of their number who did not watch either national political
convention, followed by Republicans, Refused, and Democrats. Fewer
Independents participate in politics than do other groups. (See Table
17.)

Knowledge gpppp,debates. As indicated before, a great majority
of the viewers were unable to report much knowledge about the debates.
The percentage difference was too small to be useful.. The Dmmocrsts
show a slight edge over the Republicans in general knowledge about

the debates. (See Table 18.)

M Q £119. gebateg. The Democrats showed considerably

more interest than other groups in the debates. They were followed by
the Republicans in viewing intent and intention to ask outsiders, but

below the other groups in talking and reading about the debates. (See

Teble l9.)

Qpinion gpppppgpppppp, The Democrats ranked considerably
higher than all the other groups in offering an answer to a question
;concerning the purpose of the debates. Also, the Democrats ranked
highest of those who believed the debates would have pg,effect on
voting. They also ranked highest in the percentage of those who knew

who was paying for the debates, and'in those who thought the debates

40

TABLE 17

EFFECT OF POLITICAL PREFERENCE 0N INTEREST IN POLITICS

 

 

 

 

Republican Democrat Independent Refused or
no answer
Per Per Per Per

Number Cent Number Cent Number Cent Number Cent

Convention Viewing

Both 75 88.2 46 86.8 73 74.5 41 83.7
Republican (only) 1 1.2 O 0 1 1.0 0 0
Democratic (only) 1 1.2 3 5. 7 0 0 O 0
None 8 19.4 4 8.5 24 24.5 8 16.3

22.1.1.212}. W
Yes 9 10.6 6 11.3 I. 4.1 6 12.2
No 76 89.4 47 88.7 94 95.9 43 87.8

w—

he

Did

D1:

41

TABLE 18

EFFECT OF POLITICAL PREFERENCE ON KNONLEDGE ABOUT DEBATES

       

Republican Demcrat I 1

*W'“ 7

 

Per Per

 

Knew

Did not know

Knew

Did not know

lnaw

Did not know

Knew

Did not know

—¥

Me; Cent Number Cent Number
fichedule of; LL25. 22.92.29.
19 22.4 16 30.2 13
66 77.6 37 69.8 85
fichedulg of 93133; Debates
4 4.7 6 6.6 2
81 95.3 47 93.4 96
22223.; cesium
4 4.7 8 5.1 3
81 95.3 45 84.9 95
Subject 9; 9.939.132.
5 5.9 4 7.5 2

80 94.1 49 92.5 96

Per

' efused
422.942.93.99...

Per

Cent Number Cent

13.3 14
86.7 35
3.9 5
96.1 44
3.1 5
96.9 44
2.1 1
97.9 48

28.6

71.4

10.2

89.8

10.2
89.8

2.1

97.9

 

Ye

B:

42

TABLE 19

EFFECT OF POLITICAL PREFERENCE ON INTEREST IN DEBATES

' Republican Democrat Independent Refused or

 

 

 

__ __ _ no snow;
Per Per Per Per
g Number Cent Number Cent Number Cent Number 2114;
Viewing M
Hill watch 59 69.4 43 81.1 47 48.0 24 49.1
Will not watch 11 12.9 1 1.7 27 27.6 11 22.4
Are not sure 15 17.7 9 17.2 24 24.4 13 26.5
595 Outsiders
Yes 6 7.1 7 13.2 5 5.1' l 2.0
NO 79 92. 9 46 86. 8 93 94. 9 48 98. 0
2.132 Am;

Yes 12 14. l 12 22. 6 16 16. 3 5 10. 2
No 73 85.9 41 77.4 82 83.7 44 89.8
329 1229.1.

Some 17 20.0 14 26.4 27 24.1 16 32.7
Little 25 29.4 _ g 14 7. 26.4 23 20.5 13 26.5
None 43 50. 6 25 57. 2 62 55. 4 20 40. 8

43

were a good idea. (See Table 20.) A very large majority of a11 view-

ers did not know who was paying for the debates.

Lincoln-Eggglgg_knggledge. There are no significant differ-
ences among the four groups as far as knowledge about the Lincoln-
Douglaa debates is concerned. Approximately two-thirds of all

respondents were correct in their answers. (See Table 21.)

ygdia Index

Igterest ig,goliticg. There is a direct relationship between
media index and watching the conventions. The higher the index, the
greater the percentage of viewers for the conventions.

The great majority of viewers gg.ggg.participate in politics.
There is some indication that the higher index rating is related to
the degree of participation, but it is not consistent throughout the

entire audience. (See Table 24.)

K_ng_w_l_ggg_e_ £1393; d_e§_a_§g_s_. There is a direct relationship
between the index rating and knowledge about the date of the first
debate, the schedule of the other debates, and knowledge of the
debate conditions. There is some mixture of the two highest index
Croups, but the other groups fall far below. ‘More than ninety percent

of the respondents did not offer an answer to a question concerning

the subject of the debate. (See Table 25.)

RBI—9.9.5. £9. fishes“. There is a direct relationship between

index rating and interest in the debates. The higher the index rating

 

Ans

11:

Re

C4

44

TABLE 20

EFFECT OF POLITICAL PREFERENCE ON OPINION ABOUT DEBATES

Refused or
no answer

Per Per Per Per
Number Cent Number Cent Number Cent Number Cent

         

Republican .huflDemocrat I Independent“

Purpose
Answer 40 49.2 36 67.9 41 41.8 21 46.9
No answer 44 51.8 17 32.1 57 58.2 26 53.1

Difference ig_Voting

Yes 7 8.2 3 5.7 12 12.4 1 2.0
No 41 48.2 33 82.3 21 21.8 27 55.1
thbe 13 15.4 7 13.2 25 25.8 6 12.2
Doubtful 12 14.1 8 15.1 .8 8.2 5 10.3
Do not know 12 14.1 2 3.7 31 32.0 10 20.4

222252.2212225

Candidates 0 0 l 1.9 l 1.0 0 0
Parties 21 24.7 9 17.0 8 8.2 8 18.3
Networks 14 18.5 13 24.5 19 19.4 9 18.4
An! other 2 2.4 2 3.8 o 0 0 0
Do not know 48 56.4 28 52.8 70 71.4 32 65.3
222222.1229.
_9°°d 59 89.4 40 75.4 82 83.3 28 57.1
“ht 899d 8 9.4 2 3.8 9 9.2 9 18.4

no not know 18 21.2 11 20.8 27 27.5 12 24.5

‘

Yea

No

Ye

45

TABLE 21
EFFECT OF POLITICAL PREFERENCE ON LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE KNOWLEDGE

          
     

—_ _~ _ ._.._. ._

       

 

Republican um... * mm...
‘__ no answer
Per Per Per per

___ Number Cent Number Cent Number Cent Number Cent
M *

am;
Yes 57 67.1 39 73.6 61 62.2 31 63.3
No 7 8.2 8 15.1 13 13.3 5 10.2
Do not know 21 24.7 6 11.3 24 24.5 12 24.5

Lincoln-Douglas 9212.9. 1131;; gel;
Yes 65 76.5 41 77.4 70 71.4 37 75.5
No 4 4.7 1 18.8 9 9.2 l 2.0
Do not know 16 18.8 11 20.8 19 19.4 11 22.5

46

 

 

moHHHHOQ zH Emmy—EH 20 was an! NO SE

0N mandfi

m.nm a N.mw QM a.oa. om 0.ma, mm 0.00 no 0.00H 0 oz
n.NH H m.~H n H.a w 0.0 0 c.oH n 0 may
3&3
O 0.N H 0.0 q $.nH 0H 0.0H Q 0.00 0 0:92
o o H.H H H.H H H.~ H H.HH H unnuqflun
o o H.H H H.H H o o amuuHaanoa
o.ooH u «.um mm Nana Nm ayHm an m.H0 an m.- N Juan
. 33
mmwo .6: menu .02 umou .oz ammo .02 name .92 0:00 .02
mom _ mom . mom . you won

 

47

 

8n

 

 

8.888 8 8.28 8.88 88 8.88 88 8.888 88 8.88m 8 8888 888 888
. 8.8 8 2.8 8 8.8 8 8 8 9882
.mmmmum.wm.mmmqmmm
8.88 8.88 88 8.88 88 2.88.,88 8.888 88 8.888 8 3882 888 888
8.88 8.88 8 8.8 8 8.8 8 8 8 8882
mmmmmmmmmm.mmmmmm
8.28 8.88 88 8.88 88 8.88 88 8.88 88 8.888 8 5882 888 888
8888 8.88 8 8.8 m 8.8 8 8.8 8 8 5882
8.88 8H88 nN 8.82 88 8.88 82 8.88 88 8.888.8 5882 888 888
8888 8.88 88 8888 88 8.28 88 8.8 n 8 8882
81888 8888 .82 8888 .82 8888 .82 888 .82 8888 .82 1
mom . not . mom . hem . new . you
Hnwmmlulu .nnmwumlul_ nunmumllu .llumumulu .uujmumulu .Inmmuwuu. I]:

 

8888888 88888 888882822 28 28828 88882 88 888888

0N udn<fi

48

the higher the intent to view, to ask outsiders, to talk and read about
the debates. There is some fluctuation in the 7-8 and 9-10 group.
(n of 1-2 and 11 too small.)

when the intent to view is compared with actual viewing of the

first debate, the following information is revealed:

 

1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9°10 ll
Intent x 22.9% 52.12 78.41 92.3% x
Actual ._x. .22.; .82...I_ .928 129.89. x
Change x +62.1 +30.0 + 9.6 + 7.7 x

Again, a direct relationship may be established in this dimen-
sion. The higher the index, the greater the intent to view the debates.
(See Table 26.) Also, the higher the index, the lower the discrepancy

between intended and actual viewing.

gainion gbgugidebates. A direct relationship may be established
between index level and perception of a purpose for the debates. The
higher the index, the greater the response to statement of purpose.
The percentage of persons who thought the debates would make a dif-
ference in voting is very small. Other judgments are scattered and no
special effect may be assessed for index.

No clear pattern was observed in knowledge of payment for the
debates, although there is some indication that the three upper groups
had greater knowledge than lower groups. (See Teble 27.) The greatest

Percentages are found in each category for these who did not know.

49

 

 

 

0 m.nm nH 0.88 mm 0.0m 0m anus mm 0.88 n «no:
m.~m m 0.0m NH H.8m on m.- HN 0.0H 0 0 eHuufid
m.~0 n 8.0m 8H 0.H~ 0H H.0H NH 0.0 8 0.nm N 8500.

88888 8888
0.00 m 0.0m 00 m.Hs Nu N.00 H0 0.00 08 m.n0 m 02
0.08 8 0.HN 0 u.0~ 0N 0.0H 0H ~.0 m m.~H H ooh
88888 882888
0.08 0 ~.~0 8m «.ma ~0 ~.mo om 0.na 08 0.00H 0 oz
0.n~ N 0.~H n 0.0 0 0.8 8 ~.8 N 0 no»
. 888888888.mm«
0 m.Hn N 0.8H mH 0.n~ 8N 0.00 0H 0.n~ ~ 3883 88:00
0 0.0N H 0.0 0 m.H~ 0N 0.50 0H 0.05 0 oz
0.00H 0 m.~o 0m 8.05 00 H.~n m8 0.- HH 0 we»
. . . .3ow>.mw ucouaH

mmwo .82 8:80 .02 8:80 .82 8:80 .82 ammo .oz umoo .02 1|
new . 880 280 new you new

IIMHH 0Hao 0mm7 0:0. 8un . ~1H

 

 

muficnun 2H HmmmuszH

0N uqm<fi

28 88828 88882 88 888888

magma H.H—O“ ZOHZHA-o 2° ”NEH (Ham-uh Lao BEL—RN
KN 5“.“

 

 

 

 

50

 

88888888888

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 8888888880
8 8.8 8 8 8 8.8 8
moum000_mmm ummmNmm
e ’05 Hugs
8 8.8 8 8.88 88 8.88 88 8.88 82 8 88 8
9080880
8 8.88 28 8.88 88 8.8 8 8.8 8 8 8
a mix
8.88 8 8.88 8 8.88 88 8.88 82 8.88 8 8 8
8.88 8 8.88 88 8.88 88 8.88 88 8.88 88 8.88 8 82
. . no
8 8.8 8 8.88 88 8.88 88 8 8 8
. 88.8.8.8.» fl. 8888888888 88:8.
8.88 8 8.88 8 8.88 88 8.88 88 8.88 88 8.88 8 88888. 82
8.88 8 8.88 88 8.88 88 8.88 88 8.88 88 8.88 2 888888
. . emommnm .
8:80 .o: 8880 .82 ucoo .02 8:80 .02 8:80 .62 8880 .82
new not won hum you won
III-Ill" lull-Ill - . . - 'l'llltl' allllllllltlsl .
,;828- .,88-8._. ‘8-8. 8-8 8-8 8-8

 

 

 

 

 

«N NAQQH

musinua abbnd ZOHZHAO zo RuGZH ducal MO Hunhhm

 

51

 

 

lll'l

3OQ¥ U8QOD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8.88 8 8.88 8 8.82 82 8.88 88 8.88 82 8.88 8
8 2.82 8 8.8 8 8.8 8 8.88 88 8888 8 8888 888
8.88 8 8.88 88 8.88 88 8.88 88 8.88 82 8.88 8 8888 8888
A warm 328088
8.88 8 8.88 88 8.88 88 8.88 28 8.88 88 8 3888 8.888
8 8 888 8 2.8 8 8 8 88888 888
8.88 8 8.2 8 8808 88 082 «8 .868 n o 38.803882
8888 8 8888 8 8882 88 8888 88 888 8 8 8888888
. . Avoauquamg 83283 Wu” Maw.
88.880 .02 88800 .0: 82800 .0: 882800 .082 82.88 .03 82880 .oz
80m . 80m . 80m . nah . hum . you ..
+28 82-8 8-8 8.8 8-8 8-8

 

 

unhcnma HbDa< BOHZHmO 20 NNGZH (Haul ha Humphm

88.88.888.888 88 8888.8.

52

However, the higher the index, there appears to be less willingness to
admit lack of knowledge, even when they dingt know.

.The greatest mejority of the respondents thought the debates
were a good idea, and there is some indication that media index is a
valid predictor of such a judgment. Groups 7-8, and 9-10 are reversed
in the pattern, but the upper three levels are consistentlv higher than

the lower three.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate knowledge. There is a direct relation-

 

ship between knowledge about the Lincoln-Douglas Debate and media
index. The higher the index, the greater the percentage of correct

answers. (See Table 28.)

Eggigg_intention. There is gg.direct relationship between
media index and voting intention for Nixon. There is, however, a defi-
nite "bunching" in the group who indicated they would vote for Kennedy.
The higher the index, the greater the percentage of those who indicate
a Kennedy orientation. The Undecided group is exactly the opposite.
The lower the index, the greater percentage who are undecided. (See
Table 29.) These data appear to suggest a hypothesis that the greater
the amount of information sought, (higher index) the less indecision
there will be in matters of alternative courses of action or opinion,
or in other words, an increase in information reduces the conflict

between two alternatives.

53

 

 

zoos 8.80:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8.82 2 8.88 8 8.88 82 8.88 88 8.88 82 8.88 8
8 2.8 8 8.8 8 8.8 w 8 8.8 8 8 ca
8.88 8 8.88 88 8.28 88 8.88 88 8.88 88 8.88 8 888
. one: can: ounmmm
8 8.8 8 8.88 88 8.88 88 8.88 88 8.88 8 8888 8.888
8 8.8 2 8.8 8 8.82 88 2.88 82 8.88 2 888888888 88
8.888 8 8.88 88 8.88 28 8.88 28 8.28 88 8 888888888
. . 888888888.
uaou .oz uooo .02 noon .02 8:00 .02 unoo .02 8:00 .oz
new new . pom . uom . 80m _ 80m
+22 88-8 8-8 8-8 8-8 8-2

5

 

E

mun—3302M magma mauaonazaoozHA zo ”ne.—H (Hug me Human

QN mandfi

54

E

vuusmum

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8.82 2 8.82 8 8.82 82 8.8 8 8.82 8 8.82 2

. . 8885
8.82 2 2.88 8 8.88 88 8.28 88 8.28 88 8 88 8 8888 8

. . h an:
8 88 8 8.88 82 8.82 82 8.88 82 8 8 8 8 8 88
8.88 8 8.88 82 8.88 88 8.88 88 8.88 82 8.82 2 88888
uaou .oz unoo .02 wave .0! unou .0: wave .02 uaoo .9:

you not . non ,uom . huh nah

.+22 82-8 8-8 8-8 8.8 8-2

 
 
 

 

IGHHZMHIH uthbfi IO NMQIH «Ham: mo HUMhmu

0N nansfl

55

Summary

This summary of the data concerning the pre-debate audience is
divided into two parts. First the composition of the audience without
special reference to the debates and secondly, the composition of the

audience as related to the debates.

m audience in Charleston.

1. Education plays a significant role in media activity. The
higher the educational level of the viewer, the greater attempt he will
make to procure information from the mmdia. The break-point between
educational levels and index levels is apparently when print media
activity is added.

2. There is no basis for a theory of the effect of family size
on media activity.

3. Political preference, even aside from the debates. has a
significant effect on media activity. Democrats are more active in
seeking information than are the Republicans, and appear to be more
interested in matters which surmount local interests.

4. gggi£.iggg§.is a valid concept for analysis. The index is
a significant factor in predicting or assessing interest in, and knowl-
edge of, mass media content. Also, it is apparent that a higher index
reduces the level of indecision and produces a greater tendency for
participation.

0f the four criteria studied, only £33131 _s_i_z_e is without a
basis for assessing an effect on media activity. There do not seem to

be significant patterns related to family size.

56

$33,6harleston audience g§.related £2,533 debates.

l. The over-all audience, prefdebate, were 225,well-informed
on the schedule or purpose of the debates. Also, the audience did not
know the basis for payment of the debates. The audience was only
moderately motivated to watch the debates, to ask outsiders, to talk
or read about the debates. Education was a direct factor, however.

2. Almost half the viewers felt that the debates would have
no effect on voting. The college-oriented group had the highest per-
centage in this judgment.

3. Twenty-nine percent of the audience were Nixon supporters,
eighteen percent were for Kennedy, thirty-seven percent were undecided,
and thirteen percent refused to answer. Therefore, we did not know
the voting intention of half the viewers.

4. Two-thirds of the viewers thought the debates were a good
idea.

5. The media index factor is a highly reliable predictor of
interest in and knowledge of the debates. An index of 5-6 is reported
for the greatest number of viewers.

6. There is only one indication of the effect of family size
on the debate audience. The largest family size (six or more) had the
highest percentage of those who gave a purpose for the debate, could
identify the networks as paying for them, and who thought the debates
were a good idea.

7. The Democrats were more interested in the debates, and had

more knowledge concerning them. Therefore, it is difficult to provide

57

a rationale for the fact that the Democrats also ranked heghest in
percentage of those who thought the debates would not affect voting, in
other words, a combination of interest and doubt. This combination
would probably spell out curiosity if analyzed fully.

8. The higher the index rating, the better the knowledge of
the debates. The great majority, however, did not have the correct
answers to the questions regarding it. Also, the higher the index
rating, the greater the interest in the debates.

9. There is a direct relationship between index and voting
intention for Kennedy. The higher the index, the greater the per-
centage who planned to vote for him. The index rating for Nixon sup-
porters and persons who refused is scattered and inconclusive.

The Undecided group clearly indicates that the lower the index
level, the higher the percentage who are undecided. This gives rise
to the speculation that increased communication or activity in the mass
media, especially with the addition of the print mediaD reduces inn
decision in matters of controversy or courses of action.

The most interested and mocivated person, (fictional) for the
debates was a Democrat, with a high media index rating, college~
oriented and least important, a large family. With the audience just
described before us, let us examine the data which were gathered

during and at the conclusion of "THE GREAT DEBATES.“

58

.1322. Audience in Transition

111.9. Effect 3; Education

Viewing. The educational attainment of the viewer appears to
be a significant factor in the number viewigg the debates. In all
debates, except for the second, where the grade school group slightly
exceeded the others, a direct relationship may be established, with
the college-oriented group leading, the high school group following
closely behind, and the grade school group last. These factors may

be seen in Figure 1.

Knowledge gbggg'debates. Education, again, appears to be a
significant factor in having the mggg’knowledge about the debates.
There are a few displacements in the pattern such as found in the first
debate, where the grade school group ranked second (above high school)
in knowledge of the origination of the debate, and in the fourth, where
the high school group ranked highest. Similar displacements occur in
the knowledge of first speakers. (No data on the fourth debate.) The
grade school group ranked just below the college group on the first and
second debates, and outranked both high school and college on the
third debate.

A direct educational relationship is evident in knowing the
m 2; 5h; m. Again, the rank is from the college group as

the highest correct percentage and the grade school group as lowest.

Estimate gg'"best 122," There appear to have been major shifts

in the grade school and high school groups in their estimates of which

AZOHH‘nVH-hul >I¥ Isl-Filli- clunll l:al--

.. llaouuh

 

noun 1

VIEWING Til DIIAIIS (BY IDUCATIOI)

Percent

59

\ \ \ \ \\\\\ \ x \\ \\\\ xx \ \\\\ \\\\ d’

\\ \\\ \\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\ \ \\\\\ \\ \
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\Q\\\\\\\\‘\\\\\\\‘\\\\\\\\\\\ M
\ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ N

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\ \ \\\\\\ \\\\ \

\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\\ F.
er
6')
N
H

 

‘\\\\Q\\\\:\\\\\\ \ \\ \\\\\ \\\\\\ \\ \\\\\\\\ .\\\ \\ \\\\\\\\\

\\\\\ \\\\ \\ \\\\\ \ \\\ \ \\\\\ \\ \ \\\ \ \“ \\\‘ \\ \\\ \\\\\\\\ \‘ \\\ \ \\\\\\\\‘
\

\ \
\\\ \\\\ \\ \\\\ \\ \\ \ \\\\\\\\\ \\ \\\\

 

\ \ \\ \ l‘ \ \
\\\\\\\\\ \‘\ \ \‘ \ \\\ \ \\\ \“\\\\ \\\\\\\ ‘\\\\‘\\\\\ \\

 

 

\ \ \\ \\ \ \\ \\ \\ \\ \ \\ \\\ \\\\\ \
\‘\\\\ \\ \\\\ \\\\\\ \\\\\ \\\\\\\‘ ‘ \\\ \\\ \\\‘ \\\ \\\ \

 

\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\ \\\\\\\ \\\\\\\ \\\\\ \ \Q\\~\\ Q \x‘:§ x“ \\\\\\\§ \\‘ \ \\

\ \ \ \ \ \\\\\ \
\ \\‘\C\\\\\\\\\§ \\ 8\\\\\\

 

\\\ ~\\\\\\\\\ \\ \
\\::\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\Q\\‘ \\\\ §\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ E

   

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
3O
20
10

Debate No.

0

Pro ected
College

Actual

Projected
High School'

Actual

 

Projected
Grade School

Actual

 

Actual:

Percentages of people actually reached by telephone.

Percentages of people viewing the

with potential audience.

Projected:

debate, based on comparison of audience reached

6O

speaker had done the better job. In the grade school group, an abrupt
change was noted after the third debate, when the group shifted from a
Nixon orientation to a Kennedy orientation. A similar shift was noted
for the high school group, but occurred at the fourth debate and was
more gradual. The college group estimates closely the opinions of the
BAA calmittee. The first and fourth debate were given to Kennedy, and
the second and third to Nixon.

In all groups, Kennedy was perceived as having done the best
over-all job. The grade school group had the highest percentage favor-
ing lbnnedy (sixty-one percent), and the college group had the greatest
divergence (forty-tour percent for Kennedy and twenty percent for Nixon).

.It would appear that the college group were less susceptible to
change then either of the other two. The greatest shift took place
in the grade school group, and the least in the college group. This

information may be seen in Figure 5.

figading gbgg§_ggggtggk In evaluating the impact of education
on reading ggggg_§hg_debat , we must assume that the reading reported
was done hgfiggg,the tins of actual contact, in other words, before the
debate in question. Upon examination of the results, (Figure 6) we
find again, that education plays an important role in the amount of
ireading about the debate. The respondents with grade school education
remained virtually unchanged, with approximately ggggggxgpggggng
reporting no reading about the debate. The high school group increased
iron thirty-five percent to fifty-four percent for the second debate,

but dropped again to forty percent for the third debate.

FIGURE 5

J” I.

ESTIMATE OF

(B! DWI“)

61

 

 

 

 

 

 

—-—.——-—_——_———e
——‘__‘—__——‘

b_-——-*—-_--

 

—-—- —--—-—-—————_-—

£212??? 5:5 \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\* ‘
EZ:¥\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

P‘n—-——-e———e——-

h--——_—-—*————e—-—

\\
_:::t-:::‘{:-.‘: I: 333 \\\\\

 

 

l 2 34*5e

 

—-—-—_-—4—————

 

 

 

 

 

Ciii-3\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

 

 

::::.:::::: W\

 

 

r—_——---———N—

*‘*——- -———‘ ——— —

 

 

___________

\\
9:: "-'1-:—:—‘:—“—;“-— “:53 \\\\\\\

 

 

 

 

—-—-*‘——o—-~_—

———e——‘—*—_—e——e

 

 

 

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

 

 

3:3:1§:—3\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

 

 

:__:_-;:__:_: _'_:_:___j_:_:__:__:::__ :53: \\\\\\

 

 

Ft u—s- —— —— — — —-—- .— _ _- — —- _— _ ~_ .— ._ __
-— “ — — _ _ * — ' _- — ~ -— ~ — _ _ é #
~ ~ —- —- -_ — —— —— ‘- — _— .._.— _-—_ —— — —. —_ ..._ .__.

_—-——u—_——-—.a—~————u————.——_——_

 

 

~~——— —_——-—————- —e.p

F”“~_———w.~flfl_

 

 

-—_—_—-—-_*——1\

 

 

12345-1:

VII/IA
Kennedy

 

Nixon

*Overall evaluation.

 

IIIIIIII

 

 

 

b~—_* .- cn—u—u— ~—-e—d——+

b_~‘_———_—:—-q

::_:_’,_:-;____4_-— M \\\\\\\\\\: “ ‘3
" 1::::-::3;;::§:‘::‘:-;§ \\\\\\\\\\\ ..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~ —-e - ~ — ~ —— ——- _ -— —_ —— H—u— — -— ‘

— —-—— — -—-— _——— -——T—_ .—

_ \\\\\\\\\\\\~
h\\\\\\ ~ "

 

~——*——_——-c—p-_———n

h-—_-—-—e_-——_—————_———

 

 

 

~ .
O
“:r‘ —_‘:':_—_:—_“_—_“_“:.“.: \\\\\\ "‘
— —-— h- — _ —— ————————
71:" :_:"_:".:‘: ::.::'::.1\\\\\\ N
—# ‘—- —————————————

I u .

fl

gfiLJ..i . °
3§882883882.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gr e School

63

The college group, with the exception of falling behind the
high school group in debate two, maintained an over-all highest per-
centage of reading about the debates. Eighty-six percent of the college
group reported reading about the debates at the time of the third debate.
Again, education is apparently a significant factor in reading about

the debates.

Viewing intent. when the data concerning viewing intent are
compared with actual practice in viewing, some interesting patterns
of attrition become apparent. When compared, the attrition pattern

appears as follows:

Grade School High School College
125, 525, Change £25, 52;, Change 22$: 52;, Change

Second Debate 75% 501 - 251 82% 221 - 60% 931 291 - 64%
Third Debate 72% 71 - 651 721 322 - 401 95% 401 - 551

Pourth Debate 40% 301 - 101 72% 601 - 12% 722 721~ - 0

This pattern of attrition suggests that in the time between
the intent to view, following the stimulus of the just completed
debate, and the time of the actual debate, a diminishing interest took
Place. Again, however, education appears to be a significant factor.
The attrition rate for the grade school group increased sharply between
the second and third debate, but decreased sharply between the third
and fourth debate. For the high school group, the attrition rate
diminished steadily, (20 percent and 28 percent) and the rate for the

college group dropped even more steadily.

64

It must be concluded then, that education played g.highly gig?
nificant role ;g_a§tention £2_ggg interest $3 the debates. 123 higher

Egg,education orientation ngEEg respondent, ghg_greater hi3 attention

 

52’shg,debetes. In addition, although all groups perceived that
Kennedy had done a better "over-all" job, the college group gave him

the highest percentage.

m gffect 2; Family Size
gieging £53,debates. It appears to be virtually impossible to

assess a usable pattern for viewing the debates by family size. There
are some similarities in the patterns set by families of two, four,

and six, and by families of one and three. Data were not available for
family eise for the first debate. (See Figure 8.)

Except for families of one and five, the fourth debate was the
one with the largest audience. (Data on family size was not available
for the first debate.) Families of three members ranked highest for
viewing the third debate. But again, the pattern is not clear; and no

special significance may be attached to family size.

Knowledge gbgg£,debates. There is some suggestion of a pattern
of change in knowledge about the debates, but it does not seem to be
significant. There appears to be a ggig in knowledge of the pgiggigg,
origination of the debates in all family groups except persons living

alone. (See Figure 9.)

In knowledge of the first speaker, for which data are available

only for debates two and three, there is a definite gain of knowledge.

65

 

f l 7 I

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

 

 

 

 

 

MWW .
\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\‘

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

KW
mm

mm
\\\\\\\\\\

“m
\\\\\\\\\\X\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"“1" me man (a! ramr am)

 

WW\\\\X\\\A ;
\\\\\\\X\\\\\K\\\\\\\\\\\

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\XX\\K\\X \
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\X\\\\\\\\\\\

\\\\\\\\\\\\X\\\\\\\\X\\\\\\\\‘k\\\\\

 

 

 

 

 

4

O

gs s 2 s a s a a ..

_l l J

 

_L

 

Percent

Six or more

. Five

3
Three Pour

One

2

 

Debate No.
Family Size

’I'-‘ 'llll‘l1l

- “:°Hh

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

£16033 9

KNOWLEDGE OF ORIGIN 0P DEBAII (I! ENNIS! SIZE)

Pe ercent

66

 

r _

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\‘ e
.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
k\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\‘ ..

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ a
‘ \KW\\ n

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WW .
\\\\\\\\\\\\X\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ..
W\\\\\\v a

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\~+
W"

\\\\\\\\\
W“\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \~

WWW .
mm
L\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ..

WW\\\\\\X\\\\\ ”‘3
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\V
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\X\\\\\\\\\\\

_L
o o
5’. 3 8 N .4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3

 

 

2

 

 

 

 

”g a s 2 8

Debate No.

Five '

Six or more

Pour

Three

One

Family Size

67

Persons living alone and in families of five are disjunctive. (See

Figure 10.) In knowledge of the subject g§_ghg.debate, a similar
pattern of change exists for all families, although persons living
alone appeared to have had a better knowledge of the second debate.
There is, however, no pattern which would support a hypothesis of the

influence of family size. (See Figure 11.)

Estimate g£_"best 122." The effect of family size on estimate

of"best job"is difficult to discern. Families of one, two, and five

thought that Nixon had done a better job on each debate, but families
of four and six changed their evaluation in favor of Kennedy.
The most significant factor in this particular analysis is

that the majority of viewers either called the debates a draw, or had

22 opinion concerning them. This phenomenon lends some support to a

theory that many persons in the audience looked upon them as a "show,"
or did not become emotionally involved in the tensions and controversey

which evolved, or did not have close identification with either
candidate. (See Figure 12.)
Reading either increased from the second

Reading about debate.
to the third debate or at least stayed constant at each family size.

There was no attrition for any family size. (See Figure 13.)

Viewing intent. The pattern with regard to intent to view is,

again, erratic. There are, however, some interesting patterns in the

amount of attrition by each group, and a suggestion of an effect of

family size. The attrition pattern appears as follows:

AHNHN madman-JPN holy III1I.I .lflIII. .II 1
a.“ :53“-

1‘. I’ll I|. [I II lllllull 1

 

Jl

 

new 10

"‘3’ 3m (BY ramr our)

 

 

H»\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\f
.\\\\\\\\~;

 

 

 

 

 

\\\\\\\\\\\" g
W\" "

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\:~ ..
.\\\\\\\\\\\\~ -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ "

 

 

 

 

 

WW...

 

 

 

 

.WV

 

U
U 1
3§ésséaésss

d. I lIIHRsN ‘

 

 

 

 

FW' 11

.WOIMOIMMIImygm)

U
3
la

69

 

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

 

 

 

 

W

 

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

 

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

 

\\Q§\§\

 

 

\WW \

 

 

 

WWW
\m

 

 

 

 

WW '

 

 

WW

 

 

 

 

e W\\\X\\

 

 

 

 

 

W“
“\W

 

 

1 WWW

 

 

U .
fl
0

 

 

gs s 28 a 3 a s :3

Debate no. 2 3/A 4//

..\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\: ‘

Si: or more

live

Pour "

as

One

Fusily Size

 

 

 

70

 

 

 

 

 

--~--——--------—-

 

\\\\

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_—_--—-—---
_—-_—-————
_——_——_——-

 

———_—-————n—n-—_-
_———————————-—-—
---—--—-———_—--

 

 

\\\\\

 

 

 

---——_ ——-——-&——— -—

 

 

 

-—_-—--——-—-——-_-———
—---———_——————————s—
_-———————_———-———_

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:—:—:—:—:—:—:—:—:;_—:-—‘ \\\\\\\

 

 

h——.—-—-——

 

\\\\\\\

 

 

 

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

 

_---_ ——
— ___ _

 

\\\\\\\\\\\

 

 

 

 

 

 

g -— —_————___1 1: -_—___-_ ___"‘-_-_ —- — — — — -— — — ~—
‘ l
3§ a s .2 s a 3 s s 2

Debate Is. 2 3 4

Six or bra .

Five

Four

Three

One

Family Size

VIII/l;
Kennedy

lo Opinion

linen -

flhhu b’lll‘sll III!

In M 'IIUSLI

 

 

 

 

———.——_———‘——_
-—_--—-—T———

-——--_———_——_
——_—_ ——— ——~

‘\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\."

 

 

——I_ —e-—-
_—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

§\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\~

 

 

 

U

8
m8
H

O

O
’3 2 383.9. a...

6

g 1::{5 ‘::-_::: _:- :‘\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\: \.
:;:-_:-::— :—:‘;-:_-_:-:_-—-_—- \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ .., .. a

72

 

 

Familz Sisa Third debate Fourth debate
One Intent 100% 70%
Actual 70% 86%
Attrition -301 +162
Two Intent 712 50%
Actual 715 901
Attrition 0 +402
Three Intent 682 75%
Actual 503 902
Attrition ~181 +151
Four Intent 821 55%
Actual 66% 851
Attrition -161 +301
Five Intent 1002 70%
Actual .1127. .121
Attrition -201 + 5%
Six Intent 100% 88%
Actual .1322. .92;
Attrition ~13Z + 21

Upon examination of these data, some rather surprising factors
emerge. First, between the second and third debates, a decided attri-
tion took place, except for families of two. Secondly, in every case,
all groups reported a substantial increase of those who actually saw
the debate over those who had intended to. This rather unexpected
result suggests either a computation or interviewer error, or the
presence of motivational factors which came into play in the time
Period between the debates. These may have been school activity, print
media activity, promotional material on the debates, or general aware?
uses that this was the last debate. (Note day of week and time factors

in preface.)

73

This writer, however, is unable to assess any significance to

the effect of family size on attention to, and interest in, the debates.

m g; Pglitical Prgference

The over-all viewing pattern of Republican, Democrat, and
Independent viewers is not very symmetrical. The pattern of those who
refused to reveal their political preference, however, is very symmetri-
cal, indicating a steady gain in audience.

There are some very clear-cut shifts of viewing, however.
Seventy-six percent of these expressing a Democrat preference, saw the
first debate, whereas only fifty-six percent of those expressing a
Republican preference saw it. Sixty-two percent of the Independent
viewers were in the audience, and fifty-five percent of the Refused
group saw the debates. (See Figure 15.)

This composition of the audience could appear to mean that to
the Democrats, their candidate, Mr. Kennedy, was an unknown quantity
and they had a greater desire to observe the debate in which "their
man" was matched with the Vice-President. The Republicans, on the
other hand, appear to have been fairly certain of the ability of their
candidate to win, and therefore were watching not from fear or appre-
hension, but merely to take a look at the opponent. The Independent
group, interested in making a judgment, outnumbered the Republicans.

For the second debate, a reversal took place. The Republican
viewers outnumbered the other groups by a large margin, whereas the

Democratic viewers and Independent viewers actually had a decrease.

arenas .15

VIIHIIG OP DIIAIIS (I! POLITIGllvlllilllICI)

74

 

 

 

 

W\

 

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

t\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

W\

 

 

 

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\.

 

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

 

 

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\ \\\\

 

 

 

 

WW
WW ,

 

 

 

\\\\\\\\\\\

 

_L

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

 

 

80
70 ~
60

8 3 8 8 2

12/3‘4 14*)23‘ 1W234

No.

Debate

1.2/34

Refused or No Answer

I

Independen

Republican

' Pol. Pref.

75

(See Figure 15.) This is also closely associated with the amount of

reading done by these groups.

Knowledge gbggg_debates. The Republican group had the highest
average in percentage of those who correctly knew the pgig£_g£.ggggiy
Eggigg,of each debate. The Independent group was second, and the
Democrats and those who refused to tell were tied for last. The place
of origination of the third debate was least known, except for the
Republicans.

Over-all, the Republican group showed the least amount of
decline of knowledge of place or origin and a smaller amount of change
throughout the debate. Independent group followed closely. (See
Figure 16.)

The pattern of knowledge of the first speaker is quite clear.
A marked majority of observers in each category could correctly identify
the first speaker in the first debate (Kennedy). For the Democrats,
Independents, and Refuseds, the pattern for the second and third debate
is practically identical. There was a decrease of correct identifica-
tion of more than fifty percent for each of the three between the first
and second debate, and a gain between the third and fourth debate.

The Republicans show a disjunctive pattern. The first decline,
between debates one and two is fifty percent; Egg, there is an fléflif
slgggl.decline for debate number three. The Republicans did not
recover their interest to the point of having greater knowledge of the

first speaker after the first debate.

AlUZNlflhls-s-

IF‘ Live-Rh I.“ IIII

 

 

 

 

liflfll! 16

76

 

KIOHLIDGI O! OIIGIIITIOI OP DIDATI (I! POLITICAL PIIIIIIICI)

 

 

 

 

 

 

\
W\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\

 

 

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\§\\

 

 

 

 

WWW“
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\KWN

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\X\\\ \\\V

W
W\\\\

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\\\XX\\
W\\W§\X\

 

 

 

WWW
\Wmm
“m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\\\\\x
WWW“

 

lo.

1 2 3 4A1 2 .3 4 l 2' 3 4 l 2 3 4

Debate

Refuse

Democrat ' Independent

Republican

Pol. Pref.

77

The subjects of the second and fourth debate were more clearly
perceived than the subjects of the first and third debate. Also, the
Republicans appear to be more clearly identified with their candidate
than were the Democrats. The Independents and, to some extent, the
Refused group approximate the Republican pattern. There are sizeable
increases in knowledge of the subject on debates two and four, where
Nixon was the first speaker. In all groups, a marked increase in
knowledge of subject was noted for the fourth debate. (See Figure 18.)

'The subjects for the debates were: FIRST: domestic issues,
social legislation, cost of running the government, fanm programs,
national security; SECOND: Cuba, 0-2 flights, civil rights, cold war-
Derlin, unemployment, depressed areas, China, Quemoy and Metsu; THIRD:
Quemoy and lhtsu, stumnit conference, Truman°s profanity, race-bigotry,
labor unions, economic growth; FOURTH: foreign policy, Quemoy and
hbtsu, America's prestige abroad, test bans.

One may recall that the print media carried a great deal of
information and opinion concerning debate number four. Such increased
activity could be a very important factor in the increased viewing

percentage for the fourth debate.

gatimate 2; "Egg 193." Party identification is clearly the
smost important consideration in the perception of the better job.
There are some important factors of shrinkage of opinion, however. The
Republicans began with a higher rating for Nixon and continued for the

duration, but a great deal of shrinkage (or decrease) in the strength

A ”Clo-ill:

"l‘iulll' llll

a I 'IHINVH‘

 

 

 

noun 1s ,

78

 

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\‘

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

\.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\

. \\\\\\\\
W
.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
W \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Wm

H
O
£§ s s :2 as 3 a s ..

 

 

 

1 2 3 4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3 4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3 4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KNOWLEDGE 0F SUBJICT OI DIIAII (BY POLITICAL PIIIIIIICI)

 

 

 

 

/1” 2/ 3 4

 

 

 

 

 

ate No.

Deb

Refuse

Independent

Democrat

Republican

Pol. Pref.

79

of this conviction was noticed. The Democrats, on the other hand,

changed very little. This shrinkage was as follows:

Republican Democrat

Nixon Kennedy . Nixon Kennedy
First 871 82 5% 90%
Second 32% - 55% 71 - 11 0 - 51 62% - 28%
Third 52% +.201 2% - 51 O - O 50% - 12%
Fourth . 66% +»142 28% + 262 102 + 10% 82% + 32%
Over-all 67% 28% 20% +'201 881 - 21

(20% less than at (2% less than at

beginning) beginning)

The crucial Independent voter, after an initially strong Kennedy
identification, changed to a cautious Nixon stand, although each candi-
date gained steadily in percentage. The Refused group indicated that
‘Kbnnedy had performed better than Nixon in general, but reached plateaus
on the first and fourth debate.

The Republicans gave Kennedy increased credit for his perform-
ance, a net gain of 202, and the Democrats gave Nixon an equal gain on
In over-all basis, although they gave him only a five percent gain
during the debates. (See Figure 19.)

, Although the Independent support dropped from eighty percent
to ten percent for Khnnedy, there was a corresponding drop in viewing
and reading. It may be that the Independents, after the initial
stimulus of debate activity, either did not feel the need to make a

Judilent, (seventy-five percent did not) or the members of the group

Illllll.

ANUZHlutlg I“-l- II In
' .1 'ildeUH-

 

 

 

 

II||nl

 

 

FIGUII 19

"BEST JOB"

ESTIMATE 0?

Percent

ITICAL PRBIIRINCI) .

(BY FOL

80

 

 

 

 

 

—-——~---—— _—————a
— -— -———— — —_— -——
_-————‘———_ —-———

 

 

 

 

1\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

 

 

:-\\\\\\\\\\

 

 

 

 

g—g—g—g—:_—_ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

 

_——_—_—

 

 

 

\\\\\\\
:-:—‘ \\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

 

 

i-i-i- \\\\\\\\\\\

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

R D I Re

 

——_—_—-————————

 

 

 

 

 

~—-——-_———————.————_——._—-fi
.—._:_—:———-——_—____-——_—_::

\\\\

 

 

 

 

_——————c———_—-_———c—

 

 

 

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

 

__\_\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

 

 

 

3 \\

 

 

 

 

§a 8 .2 s 9.

3

O
('1

O
N

O s
,4

'vl D I [G

R ' D I Re

R ID I Re

R D I Re

Four ‘ Overall

Three

Debate No. One

N I Republican

I
D
I

Independent

- Democrat
~I§ - Refused

E313
No Opinion

VII/é
my

:3

81

that was reached were the ones who had not made up their minds to the
point of making a judgment. Here again, though, it is apparent that
party identification is a major factor in perception of the performance

of the candidates.

Reading gbgggldebates. The amount of reading done by the
audience appears to vary according to his need for reinforcement and
his political affiliation. The Republicans, for example, (see Figure
20) had not done very much reading (thirty percent) for the first
debate, but increased greatly (to sixtyutwo percent for the second
debate and to sixty-seven percent for the third). Perhaps they began
to read, seeking reinforcement concerning their candidate from other
sources, or seeking information with which to interpret the performance
of their candidate.

For the Democrats throughout the testing period, those who g;g_
225,533g.about the debates outnumbered those who did. This indicates
that they did not feel a need to seek such reinforcement. The Inde-
pendents increased their reading sharply at the time of the third
debate, and the Refused group, at the time of the second debate.

It would be useful to observe that much of the reading about
the debates was done in order to support or seek support a particular

view of a candidate held by the viewer. Political preference is an

observable factor in this process.

Viewing intent (see Figure 21). Viewing intent, coupled with

actual practice, appears to be the most valid determinant of continues

tion of interest. .The least gross change between viewing intent and

Agglg Agflhuda *“ I‘l.‘ 'Illl
kl“ 'l‘i‘

I ‘ill: .I. 111' l Illnlllll ‘

 

hlnlli~ Ill

 

 

 

 

 

lllllll

 

—_ \\\\\\\\\\

 

 

 

"ii-3:333:55 \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ “‘ 3

 

 

 

:::::::§§§§Z:§::§i:}\ W

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\\\\\\\\ \3
\\\\\\\\\\\\§~
-—:—:—:—:—:—:—-:—:-: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ..

 

 

 

 

 

 

————————_————————

.‘hv— _ —- ————-— —— ———|

 

__—-—_e—p——s—————h—-—m—u_

~ - _ _ _ — —- .V — _— ——— —.——

 

 

 

__——O—————_h_——c—\— _—‘

_— — _——_——-—_——’————

 

-——-— — _ ——————_—--—

 

 

%:::‘S:::::::::§iIE}f \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ 9"
\\ ,.

 

lllllll

 

noun 21

83

 

~l—

 

\\\\\\\\\

 

 

W

 

VIEWING m (I! POLITICAL W)

 

 

W\

 

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

 

 

 

 

g g ‘ \E\\:\\\\\\\X\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Refuse

Independent

\\§\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Democr l

 

84

viewing practice is that achieved by the Democrats (twenty percent).
Next were the Republicans, with twenty-four percent, next the Inde-
pendents (sixty-nine percent) and last the Refused group (eighty-seven

percent). The coupling is as follows:

 

Second Third EEEEEE
Republican Intent 90 75 74
Actual .8_6. .19. .22.
Change - 4 - 1 +19
Democrat Intent 89 75 90
Actual .75.. .§.9. .29.
Change ~15 + S 0
Independent Intent 9O 7O 56
Actual £2 _S__8_ 73
Change -40 ~12 +17
Refuseds Intent 60 100 30
Actual .12 .82. .92
Change +10 ~17 +60

An evaluation of these data suggests that avowed interest may
not be a completely accurate determinant of action or might not be
dependable as a legitimate basis for forecasting behavior or interest
in television activity of this kind. Intervening variables, such as
cos-aunity or family activities and media activity, appear to play an
important role. This judgment, of course, is based on collective
percentages, and is not, therefore, stated as an absolute premise.

0

Further research in this important area is needed.

ILL»; 95 hdia Activity

An index was established for each respondent by assigning one

point for each channel through which the family sought information

85

from the mass media. ‘For example, one point each for owning a TV set,
for each radio set, for newspaper subscription, both local and metro-
politan, for subscription to news magazines, and for identification
of specific TV news or public affairs programs.

The following pattern may be observed, when analyzed by media

index:

Percent Viewing*

Igdex First debate Second debate Third debate Fourth debate

9-10 100 70 100 82
7-8 87 60 74 96
5-6 83 53 53 80
3-4 85 67 72 90

a
(See Figure 22.)

In general, families in the 9-10 index bracket had an equal
interest in the print media as well as in the broadcast media. Almost
everyone in the 9-10 group subscribes to a metropolitan paper and a
newstype magasine. Persons in the 3-4 group are users of television
and local radio and newspaper, but do not seek information as a general
rule from outside the community.

There are three aspects of this pattern which appear to be
significant. First, the 9-10 group is most interested, or at least
has the highest percentage of viewers in the audience for the first
three debates, but dropped to third place for the fourth. A possible

explanation for the change might be that thll audience had become

FIGURE 22
vrswrsc res nassrss (BI'IIDIA_1|ngx)

 

 

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \“ 3 °°

 

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ . s .

 

 

WV“

 

 

\W \..32

 

 

O
”Q

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\~3u
Wow...

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\xu§2
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\:m
\\\\\\\\\\\\\X\\\\\\\X\\n .

7/j

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KW”?

 

 

 

Wm.»

mm...»
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\X\\\\\ “3*

 

 

 

 

 

 

Four

tegories were too small‘ts be indicated.

in 1-2 and ll+ ca

87

saturated to the point of a reducing interest or their greater amount
of reading had reduced their need for reinforcement from the debates
themselves.

The second aspect is that the level of interest as shown in
the percentage of viewers is maintained at the highest general level
in the 9-10 group. The level for the 9-10 group never drops below
70 percent for any debate, whereas the 7-8 group drops to 60 percent
on the second debate and the 3-4 group dropped to 66 percent and the
5-6 group dropped to 52 percent.

The third aspect is that the 5-6 group remained in the lowest

category on all debates.‘ Even a group with a lower index ranked higher.

Knowledge gbggg'debates (see Figures 23°25). There was a
similar pattern of change for all groups except 9010 in the matter of
origination of the debates. High interest in the first debate was
replaced by a lower interest in the second, and a yet lower one for
the third. Also in these other groups, there is a return to a high
interest in the fourth debate. The 9-10 group indicated a 22:2.EERE.
interegt in the first debate, but this interest declined radically (by
55 percent) for the second. Moreover, instead of receding further for
the third debate, the knowledge of place of origination gained forty
percent and was the highest for all groups. It may be recalled that
the third debate was the split-screen debate, and this high-index
group may have been motivated to greater attention than the other

groups and simply because of the nature of the innovation.

 

 

 

 

 

P1693323

88

 

nouns: OP atom-rm: 0! nasars (B! 1891‘ max)

 

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
WW
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

 

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

 

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

\X\\\\\\\\\\\

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

 

 

 

.3.

8

8 3 8 8 3 8 8 2

Index

(3/-/4)(5-6fl-8)(/9-10) (3-4/)(5-6/)(//7//-8X<10) (34)G-6)0/-/8)(/9-D) (3-4//)(5-6)(7/-8)(9-/10)

Debate No. A

Four

Hung!" ‘H:' ’I‘ IIIIIII
«N. EN!“
I|IIIII1II‘II. ll, ill-.l

 

 

 

r 24
kmwmsm(umnmn)

 

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\‘

 

 

 

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\:
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

 

 

 

 

 

.\\\\\\\ \
§\\\\\X\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\X\\

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

W

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
WW

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

\\\\\\\\\\X\\\\\\\\\\ ::

.'¢s-/4/)(s-6)(7-s)(s./10)
Thr

(3-4)(5-6)(7-8)(9-10)
Two

(3-4)(5-6)(7-8)(9-10)
0n

Index
Debate lo.

90

fil—

 

 

W5
- \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\‘w
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\w

 

 

 

 

 

 

W\\\ \«su

 

arouse 25
KNONLnncg OF SUBJECT (D! NIDIA.Innxx)

 

 

 

Was
“We?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\\\\\\\§
.\\X\\\

 

 

 

 

 

A

 

 

 

 

W\\\\\\\\\

 

 

 

 

 

 

WK”.

 

100

O o oI
M N H

90

80
7OL
60
50
40

Index

\\\\\\\\.3.

Debate

91

There is no apparent difference in the pattern of knowledge of

the identify of the first speaker for the different indices. Perhaps

at this point we should make observation concerning the data received

for the second and third debate.

In most of the groups in all levels, there is a general tendency

to reveal a marked disinterest for the second and third

for the data

debates, on the part of those ghg.gig,ggg_ghg.debates. The usual pat-

tern of interest is up-down-up-up. In some cases the gain from the

second to the third debate is small; but aside from the disjunctive

thrusts we have noted, it is upward gain. There is, moreover, a gain

from the second to the fourth debate, in interest, attention, and

knowledge. In general, however, these do not reach the level of the

9

first debate.

This writer believes that the data so far indicates the presence

of an inaugural effect which cuts across all lines of interest and all

levels of education, etc., and the presence of a terminal effect.

These effects, that of fin-mess and lsstness, heighten motivation,

interest, and perception, and desire to participate in an event.

ess and lastness is important also. In the case in

The ggg323,of firstn

hand, the concept of the first
"last" debate, (since the much-touted

Presidential Debate, with its attendant

publicity, and the announced
did not materialize) enhanced the programs for the viewing

fifth debate

public. These motivations appear to be mitigated by factors of educa-

tion and political preference in this study, and, as shall be shown, to

some extent by media index. They do ng£.appear to be affected by

factors of family sise..

92

The pattern of change in the matter of knowledge of subject

for each debate is one of consistent gain. All groups indicate an

increased ability to recall the subject of the debate. The 3-4 group

It may be observed in Figure 25 that this

reports the greatest gain.

group also had the greatest accumulation of a deficit of knowledge.

In other words, they had the longest way to gel

Estimate 2f.better 122, There appear to have been major

shifts of opinion within index grouping in the matter of estimating a

better job, except for the 3-4 group, which perceived Nixon as doing

the better job on all four debates. This 3-4 group, however, had a

changing strength of evaluation for Hr. Nixon. This may be observed

in Figure 26. For groups 5-6 and 7-8 the fourth debate appears to have

been the deciding factor. This debate appeared to be most decisive

for all groups.

Dy way of comparison,-the four index groups in their over-all

evaluation of "best-job" indicated the following:

ll ex Me. Email 9.11mi
3- A 702 30% -401
s. s 407. 487. st
7- 8 361 60% 24%
9-10 16% 70% 542

Here we may see a direct relationship between index and indi-

cation that Kennedy had done a better job. The higher the index the

higher the tendency to change opinion.

 

 

 

 

IIGUII 2‘

Percent

93

 

;.

 

 

Eff?“VS§§§§§$®§S§§C§S§§&;

 

 

 

I-j§§§§§§$§§§§3§§&x

Jab

 

 

1“='\§$§§$§§§§8&x‘

 

..£ '6 8 10

to to to to

 

h5§§§$§$u

 

t—Iest Overall

’ 3 5 7 9

 

 

 

____________________ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

 

-“fi ~‘-‘-—I—

‘Sg‘§§§$u

 

 

 

 

-. _‘§§h_
-}}}- ---- ‘Q§§§S§S§§§S§x

 

 

 

. 333‘§§§§§§§t

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

—_ _———-.—-. —p—-u-—_e-u—,——

 

-—**—_——_——————-.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

L—_._.__..____—_____.__..__.__.__.——_

 

 

 

——-————_— .—_—_————-—————.——_

————_————_————.———a—_——_—-——

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 VS§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§h§

 

 

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

 

 

 

 

10L

4
O
N

g ééééés‘é

94

Readigg £2223 debates (see Figure 27). Index groups 7-8 and
9-10 read more than the lower groups, and the 9-10 group read gggh_gggg.
The identification of the 3-4 group with Nixon may also be noted, here
also, as there was an increased rate of reading after the first debate,
as reinforcement of explanation was sought. The 5-6 group, however,

stayed on the same level, then declined.

Viewing intent (see Figure 28). Let us compare viewing inten-

tion with actual practice:

 

 

Grogg Second Debate Third Debate Fourth Debate
3-4 Intent 821 761 80%
Actual 671 72% 905
Change ~15! - 41 101
5-6‘ Intent 87% 74% 72%
Actual 523 545 _§Q§
Change ~35! ~201 82
7-8 Intent 902 341 671
Actual 60% _Zfl1. .293
Change -301 101 292
9-10 Intent 902 85%
Actual 192.2. .821
.Change 101 - 51

In all cases, except for the fourth debate, the actual
Practice was lower than the estimate. All groups except the 9-10
exceed the estimate, and the 9-10 group came close. The greatest

average error was in the 7-8 index group.

r 27
assures assurznasars (a! aspra.rssax)

 

""""""

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\§\§\\\\§

\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(3-4)(5-6)(7-8)(9-10)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

 

 

(3-4)(5-6)(7-8)(9-10)

 

\ \ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

 

 

 

\\

 

(3-e)(5-63(7-s)(9-10)

 

 

 

 

\\
\\\\\\\\\\

 

Index
Debate

Home 28

 

'''''''''

 

 

 

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

 

vnwm m (H FIDIA INDEX)

 

 

 

 

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. _L
fig 2 a 2 a a, 3 a a 2

\\ .3.
\\X\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \....-,.

\\ .3.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ..

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

ate lo.

97

Influence _g L; Debates 9;; Voting

& Question

All groups completely reversed their opinions regarding the
effect of the debates on voting, and by quite large margins. The
amount of change was most significant in the college group, closely
followed by the high school group, and last by the grade school group.
(See Figure 29.) Education, therefore, appears to be a significant

factor in change of opinion.

31 Famin Sire (See Figure 30.)

All groups completely reversed their opinions regarding the
effect of the debates on voting. The rank order of the extent of

change is as follows:

Eli-.11. gi_z_e Percent 91; 295.982
Six or more 65
Five 40
Four 35
Three 50
Two 47
One 17

There is no observable pattern which would indicate an effect

of family sise on opinion about the effect of the debates on voting.

 

 

 

INC (DY EDUCATION)

FIGURE 29
OF INFLUENCE 0N V0!

ESIINNEE

Percent

 

 

,ee
_ _ - 9..

  

 
    
 
   
 

 

Post

   
  

 

 

College

Pre

 

 

 

DIET]

No Response

 

_——_——

——-——_\

_—_~—

 

——_——-

Post

 

 

—-_—-

 

—_———

Pre
High School

 

 

—_—-—---—

Post

——‘——_—_
__—-————__—\
-—_--—-—e——

—.~————.———
—————-——

 

 

 

——_-—_c—

Pre

Grade School

 

 

 

 

 

 

20-
10.

Debate

 

 

 

 

 

 

233i:\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\‘

 

 

————————

 

 

 

 

 

 

——_-——

 

 

1:321:35 \\\\\\\\\\‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

iii-:3 \\\\\\\\\\\\\\_

 

 

 

 

 

_—-—
__._
__-
___ \

 

 

:: ::—’:::1:\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

g :3::::::::::3 \\\\\\\\\\\\ \‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

. 0)
0111 1 ll
§§33282383233

 

100

§x_Political Preference (See Figure 31.)

 

All groups completely reversed their opinions regarding the
effect of the debstes on voting. The rank order of the extent of

change is as follows:

Political Preference Percent 2;.922233
Democrst ' 651
Refused 55%
Republican 362
Independent 25%

we may observe the closeness of the Democrat-Refused groups

(ten percent) and the Republican-Independent groups (nine percent).

Q1_Mbdis Index (See Figure 32.)
All groups completely reversed their opinions regarding the
effect of the debates on voting. The rank order of the extent of

change is as follows:

Index Percent 23.923233
9-10 581
11 (small n.) 50%
l- 2 (small n.) 502
7- 8 ' 452
5- 6 452

3. 4 201

mmwemmox 0% oz

. —=—_E§—— mmmmwmmW m w

0

womfiwwm unencumowsw unnunaoa mangansnom

umom can seem mum neon wwm waom

 

oum auunmq

 

 

 

 

ow

 

 

 

 

 

m

 

 

 

 

___ L ca

 

—_._..._.-._
.—_.._-._—_—..—n
-——.__.__._..___
————.

 

 

 

 

 

.— .o—w_-—
—_ _ _—_

F'— —— —— —— ——4
T"...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

_

_
r.h cod
uaouuom

F‘.
L.

 

Auozumummum naouaunom any azuao> no nonmanmzu to masmuamn

an “abwnh

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FIGURE 32

sea-nun or max on mm mm mu)

Percent

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

      

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

f U
. “ ‘5’; +
, . \\\\\\\\\\\w & ‘ ., :1
§ - \\‘\ f&\ \\\ \;;\‘ \:'_/\\ E
h;—;r;:_ ‘V 4’ “x %~- :
Lei—3% ' - “ 24* a 2 §
—:—fi \\ KW? \ é as c}. 3.
£~.~:n\\\\\\\\\\ \\ ~ \ a: s»:
é
__ __,_ __ . \ _ .. ‘ _. 3
i:—:—:—:—\ ‘ \ we f: m
F:;:;;f;4 \\ IK<§\ \\5\5~ \ \ ‘"\ 51m r;
:—:.-:~: k\\\\\\:\s -_;_ , 5%: 3::
Ki; : : \ \ f" " I S
‘:~:-—::_:k‘Nw \ g a .3 fi
_.:,_—_: :1 \ \\ \i“; \ \ \ \‘~ “’ ‘” \\ °
52*}: f :\\\\\:\\\\§\§ 3: “ z

 

 

 

 

 

F —————————— \C\:
L: _- .r- z _- : : : _: : \.,\\\
Lfi_f2_‘1;f;—;f_:‘;f ’

 

 

 

/
//
/
.Pre Post
3-4

__—.;- ————————— \\\‘?\\f‘:\;\ w“ \\
—... —.. —_-—_.—._— : §\\\®\\\\x\\\\ _

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

WY: ~ ‘ E

 

 

 

 

_JL
§*‘as

 

70~
60L
50
40 A
30~
20“
10%

Debate
Index

‘4!

The evidence seems to indicate that there is relationship bee
tween heavy use of the media and the degree of change of opinion of
the effect of the debates on voting. let us be aware, again, however,
that the breakpoint of the addition of the print media is about the
5-6 group. we may observe that the breakpoint of change comes between
the 3-4 group and the 5-6 group. This reiationship, added to the
relationship and patterns already estsbiished, seems clearly to indi-
cate a basic theory which may be applied ;o similar television pro»
grams of the kind we have observed.

This theorem or postulate is as follows:

1. Change of opinion in political aroedcssting is directly
related to the amount of use the Viewer makes of the mass media.

2, Television programs» 1:: giganfiglygsy are not as effective
in changing opinions, as are television and print media used together.

3. The print media and telev1512n, where controversy is con-
cerned,are equally valuable, and used together, are much stronger than
either the print media or television alone.

4. The use of print media serves as an interpretive agent, or
in some cases as a reinforcing agent for tie viewer.

This theorem touches on other concepts such ss amount of ex=
posure and its relation to effective communication, credibility factors
of the different media, and reinforcement patterns. we have set about,
however, to study change of Opinion and impset on a particular audience
at a particular time in history, under the stimulation of the GREAT

DEBATES.

104

Conclusions

 

,I.. The Great Debates had only nominal interest for the Charleston
audience at the time of the first contact two days before they

began.

Rationale

There was no precedent for the Great Debates on television.
Presidential candidates had appeared singly on an equal but separate
time basis, and no dipggp, faceeto-face controversy had taken place.

It was an entirely new concept.

Support for Rationale
The lack of knowledge about the debates, lack of persuasion of
media announcements and promotion about the debates, lack of definite

plan to watch the debates.

Comparison piph_other §gudies

 

The Charleston study does not agree with the Lang study (see
page 9) that respondents "looked forward to the exchange and news;"
neither does it support the Gallup poll, which found 55 percent of

the audience looking forward to the debates with ”a lot of interest."

II. At the actual time of the first debate there was high interest
in the debates, but this interest declined for the second and
third debates. Community activitieseefootball games-«and

welleset social patterns (shopping on Friday evening) were

105

among the intervening variables which contributed to the decline.
The interest increased substantially for the fourth debate,

although not so high as for the first.

Rationale

An inaugural ggggpp is an important determinant of interest of
television programs. It may also be called a "firstness" effect.
Also, a terminal effect is an important determinant of interest. It

may also be called a "lastness" effect.

§gpport for Rationale

1. The high number of viewers for the first and last debate,
and the low number of viewers for the second and third debate.

2. The greater percentage of those who had greater knowledge of,
and interest in, the first and last debates, and the lower percentage
of those who had knowledge of, and interest in, the middle two debates.

3. The increase in the number and completeness of answers to
specific questions concerning the debates at the time of the first
debate and the fourth debate and lesser amount for the second and

third debates.

III. Education and media index were valid determinants of interest
in and knowledge of the debates. The general rule is: The
higher the level of education and media activity, the higher the
attention to, interest in, and knowledge of the object of the

program. This cannot pg_projected gp_programs g§_other tzpes

pp.the basis 2§.this study.

. I ‘lli‘ll‘llll'
‘.4¥‘ [..‘

 

106

Rationale _A_

The viewers with the most education are basically most intern
ested in programs where "important" issues are at stake, or where the
level of participants is very high, or where they feel the decisions
and discussion will affect their lives or standards. The higher the
education, the greater the evaluative aspects of their academic ex-

perience.

Support £4; Rationale A

l. The data indicate that the knowledge of, and interest in,
the debates varied directly with the educational orientation of the
viewer.

2. The number and completeness of the answers to specific
questions concerning the debates varies directly with the level of

education.

Rationale §_

The viewers with the highest index rating are basically more
interested in programs where publicity or information has been multi-
plied (radio, TV, newspapers, news magazines, etc.). The stimuli to

view accumulate to produce a high motivation to view.

Support for Rationale §_
1. The greater percentages of higher index respondents viewing
the debates and doing greater reading about the debates. The percent-

ages in each of these categories are directly related to media index.

107

The pattern is not consistent, (the fourth is different) but net in-

terest over all the debates, supports the rationale.

IV. Familz size is 225’s valid determinant of interest in, and know-

ledge of, the debates.

Rationale

Other factors are more important than family size. Also it
indicates that viewing of programs of this type is not a family affair,
and the adult members of the family are more interested in programs of

this kind, regardless of the number in the family.

§gpport gpp_the Rationale

1. There was no consistent pattern of effect for families of
different sizes for any aspect of the debates.

2. The viewing situation of highest incidence was a husband

and wife situation. very few families viewed the debates together.

V. Political Preference is a valid determinant of interest in, and
knowledge of, the debates. Stated preferences indicate a partiu
san, selective perception of the performance of the candidate.
Independent voters, for this event, were largely Democratic-
oriented or moved to the Democratic side. There is no indica-
tion of pattern change for those who refused to divulge their

political affiliation.

108

Rationale
Party affiliation or prefconceptions outweigh an objective
view of the opponent. Rationalization took place ("Better job"

answers) when negative perception came into play.

Support £23.5pp_Rationale

1. In all cases, the Republicans were Nixon-oriented on
"best job" answers, and in "didn't likes" and in "additional comments."
And the same is true for the Democrats.

2. The independent voter group changed their views toward a
Kennedy identification in greater numbers than did the Refused or
Republican group.

3. Both Republicans and Democrats indicated a drop in their
evaluation of their candidates from the first debate. The Republicans
indicated a greater drop than the Democrats. Each group indicated a
twenty percent gain in the estimates of the opponent. The Republicans"
gain came earlier in the debate sequence than did the gain of the

Democrats.

The major portion of this study was being conducted, evaluated,

and written at the same time as those studies which are reported in ng

Great Debates.21 ,Of those studies, Katz and Feldman say: "Mbst of

 

212§§_§ggg£,ggpg£pp, Sidney Kraus, ed. (Bloomington, Indiana:
university of Indiana Press, 1962).

109

the studies . . . were designed almost accidentally, as a byeproduct
of continuing reports on campaign developments. All were designed in
a hurry. "22

The research methods used in Ipp,Great Debates were as varied
as the results. Samples of all types and sizes were drawn, studies
were conducted by phone, personal interview, and self-administered
interview. (All three were used in Ipp,§hgpleston Study.)

To compare and contrast zhg_Char1eston Study with each research
project in gpp,§pppp_bebates would consume a great amount of time and
paper, and would yield little in the way of comparison. Of the
studies reported in gpp,gpppp Debates, The Charleston §ppgx_was the
only one conducted in a small midwestern community, and which was
based on interviews with a randomly selected panel of respondents.

There are some basic points at which comparison may be fruitful.
In terms of difference, the Charleston audience: (1) did not have as
much interest in the debates as others have reported, (2) changed
their perception of the opponent to a larger degree than others have
reported, while changing their voting intention less.

ghp_§hgrleston Study does agree with these other studies,
however, at other points. In Charleston: (1) the debates played a
supporting role rather than serving as an agent of change, (2)
education and media activity were closely related, (3) the majority
of viewers thought the debates were a good idea, and (4) the debates

221bid., p. 213.

110

presented the images of the candidates more clearly than the
issues.

As an overall evaluation of the results of The Charleston
§ppg1, it seems that the differences which have evolved may well be
a function of the type of community in which the study was conducted.
It may be, for example, that when the respondents chose to attend to
some other community activity rather than attend to the debates, they
did so because communities of this size and composition are more
closely-knit, more cohesive, more dependent on those functions for
their social existence. In larger communities, this inter-relatedness
is less apparent and important. Also, because the political affilia-
tion of the adult population is subject to greater scrutiny in small
communities, overt expression of change, and a weakening of one°s
political standare less likely to occur.

Also, with one community newspaper, a common factor in com-
munities like Charleston, the great majority of its citizens are
subject to only one source of printed information. Where the respond“
ent of The Charleston Study subscribed to a metropolitan newspaper
and or news magazine, he also indicated a greater interest in and had
a greater knowledge of the debates.

It would appear that there are some "hints" or suggestions now
available for future debates. First, there appears to be a strong
relationship between the print media and the broadcast media for pro-
grams of this kind. It would probably behoove an aspirant for the

office of President, (and perhaps for other offices) to time carefully

111

his public pronouncements on matters which might be a part of debates,
in order that they may reach the general population as near the time
of broadcast as possible. It seems that this is doubly important for
communities where local political issues and candidates are more
easily discerned than national issues and candidates. The "ward
healer" would find it hard-going to motivate his constituents to pay
attention to the messages of one candidate to the exclusion of the
other, when both are appearing on the same program. In other words,
the impartial (setting aside the editorial stance) report of the
news pages of the local newspaper, which has been prepared from wire
copy, has a greater effect on national issues and political person-
alities, in small, relatively isolated communities.

Secondly, the debates should be promoted in a non-partisan
sense. Public schools should be supplied with non-partisan promotion
material such as colored posters for classroom and bulletin boards,
take-home brochures, and classroom projects, based on the issues of
the debates, should be begun. (Several classes at Charleston High
School under the direction of Mr. Pierce Pickins, prepared more than
30 scrapbooks of material on the debates for the author.)

Third, the debate topics should be known in advance; and
factual material should be available for wide distribution. In order
to get the widest possible viewing audience, the debates should be
released at different times in different time zones. There should

also be a re-plsy by video-tape during the interim between debates.

112

Above all, the debates should be promoted as an American
community activity. In fact, a nationwide program should be estab-
lished whereby citizens are invited to send in suggestions for the
subjects of the debates. An impartial organization could evaluate
these suggestions and distill the agenda for the debates. In addi-
tion to making possible the guidance of the population in this manner,
such a program would provide a mailing list of interested citizens.

The Great Debates were a phenomenon in America political
activity. In Charleston, Illinois, the television audience was
curious, but not highly motivated to view them for intrinsic reasons.
Persons with higher education and higher media activity received more
from the debates. As far as political effect can be assessed, the
debates played a supporting role rather than a role of change. The
debates, after Klapper, had a "phenomonistic” effect, rather than a
"hypodermic" effect. This is supported in some measure by the

following breakdown of voting patterns in Charleston.

1952 Eisenhower 3?99 Stevenson 2035
1956 Eisenhower 3229 Stevenson 1973

1960 Nixon 3220 Kennedy 2338

we may observe that whereas the Republican vote (in a 60-40
Republican bias situation) shrank by only nine votes, the Democratic
vote gained by 365. Therefore, since no significant switch-over is
apparent, we are led to assume that more Democrats voted, and beyond

that opinion, that they did so because of their new (or renewed)

113

enthusiasm on behalf of their candidate. The Great Debates apparently

had a "phenominiatic effect" on this dramatic change.

Acknowledgments

Grateful appreciation is extended to Mr. Charles Harper,
Executive Director of the Charleston Chamber of Commerce, Mr. wayne
Shusy, attorney, and Mt. Ben weir, publisher of the Charleston Courier
for their great help in the early stages of the study; to Carol
Reeves, Eleanor Rowland, and Dewey Flaugher for technical assistance,
to the students at Eastern Illinois and MacMurray who did the leg
work, and to Dr. Donald Olmsted, Department of Sociology and Anthro-
pology, Michigan State University for his kind and generous assist-
ance and advice in the evaluation of the manuscript. Also, grateful
appreciation is extended to Dr. Walter Emery and Dr. Kenneth fiance,
the co-chairmen of the doctoral committee, who were helpful at every
step of the way.

The acknowledgments for The Charleston Study_would not be
complete without an expression of my personal gratitude to my wife,
Louise, who understood my need, and had faith in my darker hours;
my son, Jeff, who waited with patience beyond his years, and to my
daughter, Carol, who came along as the grand prize. It is to them,

'that this work is affectionately dedicated.

AL

 

APPENDIX A

PERSONAL RESPONSES

Purpose 2£,Debate (Pre-Debate)

Inform (2)
Pacts
Views (2)

Get countries together
Understanding

Clear thinking

lhow candidates

Get people to vote

See stands (2)

better lives
Foolishness

See them side by side

116

High School

Inform (12)
Facts
Views (5).

Get votes (2)
Issues (7)

Better world (3)
Political

Elect president (3)
Enlighten men (2)
Platform policies
Decision making
Know candidates
Knowledge (2)
Beat man (2)

See both sides (2)

College
Inform (11)

Views (9)

Get votes (5)
Issues (6)
Enlighten men
Hire president
Mitch wits

See both sides
Determine standing
To win (2)
Acquaint public
Education
Foreign policy
Promotion

Ideas (2)
Foolish

Public Service
Stands (3)
Preparation
Philosophies

See attitudes

117

SUBJECT OF DEBATES
(Terms suggested by respondents)

First Debate

9mg semi use agree __a.c<>11e e
Domestic 1 8 25
Internal 0 1 7
Education 3 2 4
Federal aid 0 O 1
Social Security 2 2 1
Old age 2 l 3
Farm 0 l 3
Hbdical O 1 2

Others: defense, program, economy

emanate"
Argue
Condition of cold war
Budget
Civil rights
Economic Recession
Foreign & Domestic
Foreign policy
Promotion
Farm
Formosa

*
Not available Quemoy (3)
by education.

118

mud m
Disarmament
Economic problems (3)
Farm (2)

Foreign policy (6)
Formosa (5)
Islands (4)

HItsu (3)

Old age (1)

Qu-moy (5)

Red China (1)
Religion (1)

Taxes (2)

note: Foreign policy, islands, Quemoy, Mstsu, Formosa, and Red China
lumped together totals twenty-four.

Foreign policy (69)

Domestic affairs (2)
Prestige

The two islands (2)

World relations

Cuba (3)

Red China

LatinrAmerica

119

First Debate

"was there anything you did not like about the debate tonight?"

we
are: seen use 2292.1. ___,_c.n. .
Nervous Smiled too much Not poised
Temper Nervous
Republicans taking Grammar
credit for new
schools Poor story
Not positive
More conscious (self)
MMdslinging
Kennedy
lbved too fast Platform Kennedy
lbnnsdy Told to stand up Eyes blased
Looks Too critical Cocky
Immature Not sound Cocky
Attitude toward Hair
Nixon
Catholic
"Why have you changed your minds?”
"Issues clearer" "Borderline"
”Personality" "Might" (Change their minds, I
think)
”Think more"

"Made think"
"hybe" .

120

At the conclusion of the debates, the respondents were asked a
series of questions concerning their reactions to debetes. Their
personal responses are presented in the following pages:

"Who did the better over-all job in the debates?”
(Respondents with a Nixon Orientation)
(28 responses)
"Nixon more sincere. Better summing up."
"I agree with him.”
"More sure."
"Slight edge, but debate number four did it for him."
"More sensible."
"Seems better prepared."
"Didn't have to make issues."
"Seemed closer informed on immediate problems of country.“

"The cat is letting the mouse talk himself to death."

"Because I have always taken the Republican side after Eisenhower was
elected."

"More emotions I appeal . "
"Better informed."
"Answered more clearly and better versed on every question."

"Kinnedy has to attack, and when he does, he makes mistakes in his
assumptions."

"More aggressive, better informed, better appearance."
"His points were much clearer."

"He is better qualified to answer the questions."

121

(Nixon Continued)
"He had good answers and did not make up things like Kennedy did."

”Answered questions where Kennedy just talked, but failed to give
direct answers."

"Shows more depth of reasoning."

"He conducted himself in a more natural way."

"Party platforms and he answered any question directed to him."
"His more level-headed."

"Direct to the point on all answers."

"Calmer and seemed more sure of his facts."

"Displays more background."

"More knowledge."

"Kennedy answered questions without explaining how he could accomplish
what he could do."

(Persons with a Kennedy Orientation)
(37 responses)

"Seemed more at ease."

“More direct and firmer in his convictions, not waivering or charging.“
"He has been concise and answered every question headvon.”

"Better speaker."

"States facts with accuracy and never backs up about anything he said.“0
"More sincere."

"New ideas."

"More explicit."

"Made a better appearance."

122

(Kennedy Continued)
"Answers more pertinent; and more factual."
”Seemed more at ease."
"Cons is tency. "
"Quicker to reply."
"I believed he gained the most."

"About even. Slight edge to Kennedy. It's easier to charge than to
defend."

"National poll agrees that Kennedy did better job."
"Lots of reasons."

"Nixon sounded like IBM machine. Don't like statistics. They can be
-made to say whatever you want them to."

”Kennedy gives more facts."

"Knew his facts."

"More self assured . . . clear in statements."
"More direct, good delivery, good facts."
"Smarter acknowledgement."

"The nature of the situation. If he were the incumbent, Nixon would
be more aggressive in his attacks."

"He hasn't seemed so tense as Nixon. Talks as though he is better
educated, more intelligent."

"Mbre sure of himself. At ease."

"Straight forward--did not create issues. Better informed."
"Less conservative."

"Gives and tells more . . . definite stand."

A"Hore specific."

"More expressed."

123

(Kennedy Continued)
"Secure understanding."
"Quick to answer, forceful, well informed."
"He is working for the working people."
"I just like his answers better."
"His answers were expressed better."

"Better discussion of issues."

(Other)
"Both have done excellent job."

Q

"Both displayed keen minds and knowledge of subjects discussed."

"Will the debates affect your vote?" (Why or why not?)

Ni§g§.Orientation
"Nixon best qualified for the Job.N
"I agree mostly with Nixon."
"Mr. Nixon more qualified in his experience."
"Cannot vote for both . . . am a Republican."

"Knew well stand of both candidates through other communication . . .
mostly newspapers. Also am a Republican, but not “dyed in the wool.'"

"Thought Nixon to be better man. Debates proved this."
'QV'decision made after the conventions."

"Nixon better qualified, more experienced.”

"I'm-for Hr. Nixon and President Eisenhower's programs."

124

"Hind made up in the beginning."

"I stick to my party in the national election."

"Already decided."

"Debates did not put forth real issues and generalities."

"Felt all along Nixon was stronger."

"Believe in the principles of my party, therefore it has my support.W

"I am Republican . . . Nixon better man for president."

"Nixon best qualified before debates and still is."

"Kennedy lacks the responsibility."

"Just in line with my way of thinking."

"Favor restraint of conventions. Making allowances for the locale of the
Democratic convention. I still feel Republicans more serious and

solid."

"fllg.undecided, now will vote for Nixon. (Not for personal appeal, but
“platform.)"

"After carefully examining both men°s platforms, Nixon is only logical
choice."

"Ancestors came from Ireland to escape Catholic reign. Want to be
free."

"Bad already made up my mind."

"Lodge and Nixon have little more experience on government issues."
"Still think Nixon has more experience."

"Because of reading and hearing about them."

"Still like candidate I picked."

125

Kennedy Orientation

"Rad given Kennedy a lot of thought, but will definitely vote for him.”
"Democrat-Protestant . . . have always liked Kennedy."
"Hide ma happier about selection of Kennedy rather than Stevenson."

"Brings more immediate facts to consider . . . weigh each issue
carefully."

"Going to vote for Kbnnedy, and we need a change of parties."
"I liked Kennedy before and like him better now."
"Rad not made up my mind before the debates."

”Democratic party stands for what I believe. Kennedy is good represen-
t.t1v.e"

"Since 1950, I have considered Nixon an evil force, and I never could
decline an opportunity to vote against him."

"Feel and convinced the Democratic way is best."

"Strengthens previous conviction."

"thes me more sure of my decision."

"Undecided before. Born a Democrat."

"I believe in the Democratic platform."

"Since I believe Kennedy did a better job, see no reason to change."

"The man I chose has definitely shown interest in our great American
culture and keeping this a free country is his first and main purpose

regardless of all other tasks.”
"I have learned which one will become best president.”

"I have read and heard what Mr. Kennedy stands for and I have always
felt that Mr. Nixon is an opportunist."

"Was for Democratic platform before debates."

"Subjects discussed in shortest and most factual manner.“

126

"Wb've gotten to evaluate each candidate better.“

"Always preferred Kennedy. He will help people here at home and
abroad."

"Get to see and hear how Republicans act when questions of truth are
put to them." ‘

"Still liked candidate I picked."

Ng_specific orientation

"Same subject at same time and you got each opinion."o
"A talk is something you listen to but cannot always believe."

"Already decided before debate, but it did not bear out my judgment."

"Have you changed your mind about either candidate?" "Why?”

"Except in minor ways."

"In my mind, Nixon is the only qualified man for President. Kennedy is
young, immature, not consistent or concise."

"Feel Nixon is better qualified."

"Feel strongly about the religious issue. I don°t want a Catholic for
President."

"Do not like Kennedy's economic position.90
"Both men are good and I don't know what to say."

"Still believe in Kennedy. .1 think change is good for country. Hope
change doesn't lead to war."

"Thought I knew who was best suited for president . . . and I still
think same."

"Because of reading and hearing about both."I

127

”Kennedy is smarter of the two."

"Still like the candidate I picked."

"Have Debates been valuable to you?" "Now or in what wsy7W

"Only in getting a look at Kannpdy."

"Pointed up fundament‘l action or lack of action on candidates.99
"Dy both candidates answers--sama question at same time."

"Made me sure I picked the right candidate."

"Enabled America to see and hear who otherwise would not hear the
politics of each party."

"Comparison."
"Advantage of knowing more about each candidate than ever before.00
"Better trend in TV. More to educational level.”

"Both capable intelligent. Good grasp of information at fingertips and
can think on their feet."

"Interested in our politics."

"Amusing counting times Kennedy mentioned years of Navy service."
"Gave me a clearer picture of each."

"I am more aware of details of issues."

"Studied their accomplishments--better than talk."

"Saw candidates 'face to face0 and able to study personalities,
sincerity, etc."

"Perhaps to help size up candidates."
"Helped to watch their reactions to questions."

"Gave picture of both men and what they believe in."

128

"Enjoyed them . . . better idea what candidates are like."E
"Learned more about the questions in the elections.”
"Saved reading the papers to get the facts.”

"Gives me opportunity to make immediate comparison of what they are
saying." .

"Better informed on candidates qualifications.“

"Now I know the score on world affairs and will be a more educated
voter." ‘

"Learned more concerning world affairs, Castro problem, what countries
are Communist."

"Dangerous thing to judge presidential candidates merely on his ability
to debate."

"Better understanding of issues, both at home and abroad and their
influence on each other."

"Lets Americans know and realise chance to see what each candidate
plans to do about today°s problems."

"Gained answers to questions which probably : wouldn°t have read about.W
"Know both much better than I ever could possibly hope to without TV."
"Had a chance to see them and drew my own conclusion."

"WI have been able to see and hear what they really stand for.“

"Brought candidates closer to public for a better understanding of
their personalities and platforms." .

'"Followsd with greater interestaonwr history to reed about later but
something we had a part in.“

"Expect to show how shallow hr. Nixon is, to reaffirm conclusions . . .
Heaven help us if we are influenced by the way candidates look."

'Whny unanswered questions made clearer and shows the honesty of the
candidates."

"Proven to me Kennedy is the best candidate."

129

"Brought out many issues which I hadn°t thought too much about in
connection with election."

”Chance to watch each candidate in action under pressure."

"First time I paid much attention to politics."

"You feel you know the candidate better."

"Because better acquainted with candidates, their views and ideas.”
"Crystallised my opinions; better insight into both candidates."
"Reassured of the latter's ability for better president.”

"I can straighten out first hand, newspaper double talk and opinion-
ated articles on the issues."

”Offered nothing new . . . repeated things said before."
"Their statements were complete on the issues."

"heard candidates say things. Didn°t have to take newspaper reports.W
"Kennedy 'hsppy go luckyo . . . Nixon, sincere, deeper, stronger man."

"Understand qualities that make up the personality of each man."
"Cleared up numerous ideas."

"thes possible a personal comparison that newspapers and magazines
couldn't."

"J“dling personality and character revealed by voices.”
"Understood each candidsts°s politics better.”

"Better acquainted with policies of each."

"Hear both candidates give their views of country.”
"Better idea of some of campaign issues."

"Interesting but not particularly valuable.”
"Interesting for both parties and to air their views."

"Equal to contact with personalities which to those interested in
'PGOPIe' as such is revealing.

"Assisted me in deciding which candidate would make most able leader
for our country."

"Honest attempt has been made to inform the electorate.”
"I felt better informed."

"A confirmation of previously established conceptions."
"Direct information from candidates, No go~between."
"Explaining candidates stands on issues."

"No . . . too much tummy-rot. Immorality and atheism in Kennedy and
his supporting speakers-~Truman." _

"By the information I received from them."
"Explained the issues."
"Presented both candidates to public under pressure."

”Learned more about foreign and local policy than I ever knew in other
elections." '

'“Gave people of U. 8. more chance to know important facts facing
governmant in today's crises."

"Get to know both candidates better, I think."
"Clarification at several points."

"You feel you know more about the candidates."
"It clarified the issues for me."

"Learned more about affairs of country and what Congress was trying
to do. What bills to get through . . ."

”I feel I know more about my country."

"Let us know what each would do about today’s problems if he became
president."

"Opinion of candidates."

131

Additional Comments

"I hope a precedent will not be now established. If so, a new presiden-
tial qualification will be instituted. He will not be required to
debate effectively-~a doubtful asset."

"I now answer no. 12. It showed the great difference in personalities
of the two candidates." (Question 12. . . . Either candidate
Instr?)

”Kennedy ease and confidence in speaking did not in any way detract from
Nixon's sincerity in answers."

"Some newsman had better learn how to ask more informative questions.
They tended to pick out tiny questions that larger issues were lost.
I didn't like candidates having to take so much time explaining what
they had said or done at some other time.”

"Suchlmedia'of mass communication certainly should help every voter to
vote more intelligently."

“were not debates. Commentators handing questions like Quemoy. Asked
nothing about others equally vital."

”Is a good way for undecided to make up their minds."

!Bome questions asked were not too important and kept 'harping' on
same issue."

”They are good because a lot of people will watch TV who would not read
up on politics.“

”There should hhve been no disputes about conditions after they started."

"Too bad they didn't arrange some kind of debates for vice-presidential
candidates."

"lannedy shouldn't have been allowed notes on debate number three.”

"I would have liked for each candidate to have had a chance to comment
on the comments made after the answer to a question."

um debate 1gp. this may show a drawing personality rather than what he
really is." ‘

”A truly wonderful political procedure and could only happen here. High
respect should be had for both candidates for pressure they were under
was tremendous, with 60 to 65 million people viewing them."

132

"I enjoyed them and wished that every voter could have heard them."
"Keep them up."

”would rather see debatable issue instead of questions and answers or
‘ “VG bathe N

"Too many arguments were designed for political appeal and vote-getting
and remained on the level of generalities. Men of this caliber
should be more independent thinkers and have more penetrating argu»
menta. Too much of the campaign manager°s techniques were evident.“

"who chose debate topics? People still have questions which are un»
answered."

"I have been quite enthused. my interest in talking with others grew.
I looked forward to the fourth debate. wish there were to he more.”

"I feel that this kind of display is deceptive. Real issues were not
illuminated. Emotional appeal on generalizations can be harmful.
People have taken these debates more seriously than most political
speechmaking. It is therefore, imperative that such programs be
worthy of the importance people are placing on them."

”Seems politics of newsmen should have been half and half."

b

“I have enjoyed them very much. It helps to know these men can think
well on their feet."

"Should get together more on setting of the scenery.“
"Would like to see the two teams (p & vp) debate against each other.90

"I think we have really seen history in the making, and it is something
young people won't forget by the time they vote."

“I noticed that Mr. Kennedy took time to answer, (on a rebuttal) when
expected to answer a direct question."0

"I think the debates have given the people a more clear understanding
of candidates and I have truly enjoyed them.”

"Will go down in history as an excellent media for reaching the voters
and acquainting all ages with both men."

"Great step forward-~new approach in campaign-«given everyone a chance
to feel as if he has had a more personal relation with candidates.
. . . therefore a greater interest for the election."

133

"I can't help but be pleased at the way Kennedy "whittled down” the
Great Debater myth around Nixon. But I think Nixonos slow deliberate
speech and his limited vocabulary probably appealed more to peflple as
a whole and I honestly believe Kennedy is too sharp for him mentally.
Nixon is shrewder and will use any tactics to win. He couldn°t have
done anything better than to come out for "motherhosd and God.0 But
if this is presidential timber, God help us."

"I have enjoyed the debates. But we have no way of really telling the
winner."

"Greatest thing in election history since rights for women to vote.
Gave Americans chance to see and get to know candidates more
thoroughly than any newspaper account could. 0Grass Roots" is
terrific."

"Debates were most wonderful things I have ever seen on TV. I hope
they have the fifth one."

"Continue them in '64."

"Whether changed any votes, they have aroused greater interest in
election, and people listened to opposition who Otherwise would nor
have done so."

"Their debates have created more interest in the election.”

"Tapes of the debates should not be used by either candidate without
a replay of the complete program."

"I don't think a president should be drawn into this type of debate.“
"It has brought both men before more voters.”

”More people took an interest in the campaign and registered to vote..'=J
"I think it should be carried on in coming campaigns.’0

"They helped to tell the people how each candidate felt about different
problems."

"It's wonderful to see two candidates face each other and the nation
with their platforms."

"I am the mother of three small children and it is hard to keep them
quiet until you are able to hear entire debate. I do very little
reading at this time."

134

"Debate probably reached many people and will stimulate and interest
the desire to vote."

"Suggest three debates only. One each in 3 weeks prior to election.
First one a direct debate between 3 men on dangerous affairs,
second direct debate on foreign affairs, final one a panel of really

important newsman. Questions should be screened to leave out Quemoy
and Hhtsu."

"Debates have created lot of interest in 1960 election. Cause more

people to be aware of problems in government. Result in more
eligible voters."

"They fall short of being "great."W

"Debates give public opportunity to observe candidates and form personal
°Pinions. Shows reaction of candidates "under fire.°”

"Nixon's open and close speeches were worthy of a Lincoln. Positive
side . . . building up flavor. Kennedy started on negative approach

and gave little that was constructive or inspiring. Good points
later."

"Not fair Kennedy has to defend his religion. Religion should never

enter into politics. Vbte for man best qualified regardless of race
or creed."

"hbre on actions than talk of what would do. I wished information could
have been more on how each had voted on difficult issues and why.
For instance, Nixon said he voted on one federal school aid bill
because it would possibly bring dictation as to what to be taught.“

"Kennedy grew in stature, Nixon shrank.”0

"Get young, pleasant appearing, quick~thinking moderators. Demand
order among candidates and fewer restrictions.”

"Allow more time."

"Brings the candidates gloser to the public."0

”Nixon made a political mistake by holding the debates."
"Just that I enjoyed them immensely."

"Due to debates, more people have studied things over before they go to
polls to vote in this election."

135

”Good procedure . . . but this would penalize the intelligent but poor
speaker."

"I think most people enjoyed them. I thought it was much easier for
Kennedy than for Nixon, but maybe anything wceld be easier for
Kennedy. ~Mbch strain on the candidates. Much easier to criticize
than to defend. If the candidates both want to, it would be o.k.’C

"There were too many."

"After watching debates I feel I will be able to vote in the future for
the best candidate."

"Have you changed your mind about either candidate?”

"Why or why not?”'3
Nixon Orientation

"Kennedy has not changed his mind or his views.“

"Country will be in better hands and much safer under leadership of
Nixon."

"Undecided before. Feel more confidence in Nixon."
”I have liked Nixon.‘ I think the debates strengthened me."

"It confirmed my former opinions."

"I thought Mr. Kennedy to be more of a gentleman than he showed himself
to be."

"Studied both candidates and consider NixonmLodge best qualified."

"Read and followed their philosophies, believe Republican party has
sounder views over years."

"Feel more sure of Mr. Nixon and less of Mr. Kennedy.”

"Nixon still best qualified. You can°t promise so many things without
paying for them in some way or another."

"I still think Nixon better qualified."

136

"Had best man from the start."

"I prefer the character of Mr. Nixon."

"I still think Nixon the most qualified.”

"I have felt all along Nixon is the stronger of the two candidates."
"Can't see that other candidate was convincing enough.“0

"To my thinking."

'ny bias was supported."

"Like Nixon better than before."

"Difficult to accept a Catholic as president for I am not convinced
that there would not be church interference."

"Appraisal of Kennedy less favorable than originally."

"Debates confirm fact that Kennedy is less dependent on propaganda than
Nixon."

Kgggggz_0rientation
"Kennedy isn't trying as hard to build an image. He°a more interested
in being honest."
"Perhaps more respect for both.”
"Nixon seemed less informed."o

"Because of the honesty of Mr. Kennedy°s statements.08

"Bears out what I've known all along. Nixon doesn°t have any substance
to what he says or believes."

"For Khnnedy from the beginning."
"Nixon too slow and repeats continually. Nothing new with him."
"Kennedy is much more qualified for president than at first."

"When I started watching I was simply Anti-Nixon. Now I am Pro
Kennedy as well."

137

"One has better grasp and understanding of the total world situation."

"Kennedy is just as well qualified as Nixon."

"Nixon kept saying religion shoulant enter. It shoulant, but why
bring it up."

"Kennedy has consistently been better informed."

"Improved opinion of Nixon because learned more about him.00

Other Comments
"Their positions were known to me before the debate. They did not
change."

”Either might make good president. Both can think on feet. Have
excellent fund of knowledge, are well-educated and disciplined."

"They seemed exceptionally well informed on the conditions of this
country."

"I feel this is a party policy issue rather than a personality
contest."

"I think they both have done a good job."
"I don't think there was enough °debate° to change anyone°s mind."

"Both look better to me than before."

APPENDIX B

GRASS ROOTS RESEARCH

Jacksonville, Illinois
October 1960
Dear Friend,

I have certainly appreciated your help this fall in our survey in
Charleston. I am sure the results will be very helpful in eval-
uating the effect of the Nixon-Kennedy debates.

Now that the final one has just been completed, we need your
overall analysis of their effect. Would you please complete the
attached questionnaire as completely as possible and mail in the
enclosed, stamped, self-addressed envelope.

The debates have been a complete new idea in American politics,
and we hope that Grass Roots Research will have great meaning to
many of us.

Many thanks to you for your cooperation. I shall always remember
. the friendly cooperation of the people of Charleston.

Sincerely yours,

John R. Rider, Director
GRASS ROOTS RESEARCH

JRszlw

139

1.

GRASS ROOTS RESEARCH
Nixon-Kennedy Debates

1960

INSTRUCTIONS FOR CALLERS

Be courteous.

Be informed.

"Grass Roots Research" is the name of the
project being conducted by Mr. John Rider

of Machrray College in Jacksonville.

They are studying the television viewing habits

of people during the election year.

Get the name and telephone number down before
you make the call. If no answer, change name
and telephone number.

Be brief. Right to the point.

Be grateful.

mm

140

6.

7.

8.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

141

GRASS ROOTS RESEARCH
Nixon-Kennedy Debates
1960
Questionnaire A:
Do you own a television set More than one

Do you own a radio More than one

 

Do you take any news magazines such as Newsweek, Time, QhS, News
é World Report

 

What newspapers do you take

 

What news programs do you watch regularly on television

 

What news programs do you listen to regularly on radio

 

What other programs of a news or public affairs type do you watch
or listen to (Such as Face the Nation, For your Information,
Meet the Press, The Big Story)

 

Did you watch the political conventions

 

Does anyone in your family here in town participate in politics

 

Do you intend to watch the Great Debates

 

When is the first one

 

When are the others

 

How many others

 

Are there any special conditions the debaters have to meet

 

 

What subject is the first debate going to be on

 

15.

16.

17. '

18.

19.

20.
21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.
27.

142

Do you intend to ask anyone from outside your family to watch the
debate with you

 

Have you talked with anyone about the debate

 

Have you read much about the debate
(Some, little, none, etc.)

 

What is the purpose of the debate

 

Do you think the debate will make any difference to you in how
you will vote Yes, no, maybe9 doubtful, ___don°t know.

Who is paying for the debates

 

Do you think the debates are a good idea

 

Do you think the debates will be different from the Lincoln-
Douglas Debates yes, no. How

 

Was a Lincoln-Douglas Debate held here

 

Where

 

Will you tell me for whom you intend to vote

 

___Nixon, ___Kennedy, ___undecided, ___don°t know, ___refuse.

 

How many members in your family

What was the last grade in school you attended

 

May I have your name

 

Thank you.

l.

10.
11.
12.

13.

14.

143

GRASS ROOTS RESEARCH
Nixon-Kennedy Debates
1960
Questionnaire Q;

Have you been watching the debate

 

How much of it

 

Who has been watching it with you

 

(Husband, wife, father, son, daughter, outsider, etc.)

Do you have a radio

 

More than one

 

Do you own more than one TV

 

What newspapers do you take

 

Do you take any news magazines such as Newsweek, Time, g,§, News

egg'World‘Report, etc. (Check)

What was the subject of tonight°s debate

 

Have you read anything about the debate in the paper today

 

If answer is negative, how about yesterday or before

Who, do you think, did the best job

 

Who spoke first

 

Who introduced the speakers

 

Where did the debate originate

 

Do you recall any special points that either ctndidate made

during the debate

 

Was there anything about either candidate you didn’t like

 

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

144

Do you intend to watch the other debates

 

(If not, why not )

 

What do you think of the idea that the debates are on all networks

 

What programs were cancelled so that the debates could be put on

 

Was a Lincoln-Douglas Debate held here

 

Where

 

Will you tell me for whom you intend to vote

 

Do you think the debates will have any effect on the voting of

other people

 

What was the last grade you attended in school

 

5.

6.
7.

8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.

14.

145

GRASS ROOTS RESEARCH
Nixon-Kennedy Debates

1960

Qgestionnaire 9;

Did you watch or listen to the debate

 

Who watched it with you

 

(Husband, wife, daughter, son "outsider," etc. )
(An "outsider" may be anyone who does not live with you.)

Do you have a radio in your home

 

More than one

 

Do you have more than one TV

 

What newscasts do you listen to regularly On Radio

 

On TV

 

What newspapers are read in your home

 

Do you take any news magazines such as Newsweek, Time, §,§, News
and World Re ort, etc.

What was the subject of the debate

 

Who spoke first

 

Who introduced the speakers

 

Where did the debate originate

 

When is the next debate

 

Where will it be held

 

Do you intend to watch any more of the debates

 

Why, or why not

 

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.
26.

146

Were there any special points either candidate made

 

 

What do you think of the idea that the debate was on all networks

 

What programs were cancelled so that the debate could be on

 

What is the purpose of the debates

 

 

Will the debate make any difference in the way you vote
Do you think the debate will have 221 effect on voting

Wis one of the Lincoln-Douglas debates held here

 

Where

 

Did you watch the political conventions. The Republican

The Democratic

 

Are you a Democrat or Republican

 

Are you registered

 

Did you vote in the last National Election

 

 

What was the last grade you attended in school

147

Questionnaire D

 

Tel, # GRASS ROOTS RESEARCH

 

Nixon-Kennedy Debates
1960
soon EVENING. IS nus . I"M CALLING
FOR GRASS ROOTS RESEARCH. I°D LIKE TO ASK YOU A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT
THE NIXON’KENNEDY DEBATESO e o o o o e

1. Have you been watching (or listening to) the debate yes, no

2. Who was watching it with you husband, wife, child (S or D),
"outsider"--(An outsider is any person who does not live there.)

3. Who do you think did the best job Nixon, Kennedy.

 

4. Did you watch the first debate yes, no.

 

5. Who do you think did the best job on that one

 

6. Where did the debate tonight take place
7. What was the subject of tonight"s debate

8. Who spoke first

 

9. How many persons were asking questions

10. When is the next debate

 

11. How many more are there

 

12. Mr. (Mrs.) . Do you think the debates are
changing people's minds about voting yes, no

 

 

13. Do you think the debates will influence the way you plan to vote

yes, no.

 

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.
19.

148

Have you changed your opinion about either man because of the

debates yes, no..
Have you talked to anyone about the debates yes, no

k

Have you read much about the debates ' yes, no.

h

Have you seen any programs on television recently about

Mr. Nixon or Mr. Kennedy yes, no.

N

Do you plan to watch the next debate ' yes, no.

By the way, which team is ahead in the World Series

(Closing "A") Thank you very much for answering our questions.
Good night!)

(Closing "8") Thank you very much for answering our questions
for Grass Roots.

149

Questionnaire E

Name

Tel.

 

# GRASS ROOTS RESEARCH

 

Nixonoxennedy Debates
1960

GOOD EVENING. IS THIS . IBM CALLING

FOR GRASS ROOTS RESEARCH. I“D LIKE TO ASK YOU A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT

THE

13.

NIXON‘KENNEDY DEBATESe e o e o e

Have you been watching (or listening to) the debate yes, no

Who was watching it with you Husband, wife, child (S or D),
"outsider"--(An outsider is any person who does not live there.)

Who do you think did the best job Nixon, Kennedy.

Did you watch the first two debates __Jno é__lst ___2nd

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

___pne‘___both
Who do you think did the best job on those First One
Second One
Where did the debate tonight take place
What was the subject of tonight°s debate
Who spoke first
How many persons were asking questions
When is the next debate
How many more are there
Mr. (Mks.) . Do you think the debates

 

are changing people's minds about voting yes, ___po

 

Do you think the debates will influence the way you plan to vote

yes, no.

 

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

150

Have you changed your opinion about either man because of the
debates eyes, no.
Have you talked to anyone about the debates yes,

no

Have you read'much about the debates yes, no.

h

Have you seen any programs on television recently about
. Nixon or Mr. Kennedy yes, no.

~

Do you plan to watch the next debate yes, no.

(Closing "A") Thank you very much for answering our questions.
Good night!

(Closing "8") Thank you very much for answering our questions
for Grass Roots.

Name

151

 

QRASS ROOTS RESEARCH

 

Address

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

 

Questionnaire "EN
Did you watch debate #4 on October let yes _ no
Who watched it with you

(Husband, wife, son, daughter, "outsider”j (An 9“outsider" is a
person who does not live with you.)

 

Who do you think did the best job
Why

 

 

What was the subject of debate #4

 

Where did the debate originate

 

Who was the moderator

 

What were the conditions of this debate

 

 

Have you changed your mind about either candidate because of this

debate yes, no. Why

 

 

How many debates have you watched (or listened to) all,

#1 , a2 . #3 . #4 _.

 

In your opinion, which candidate has done the better overall job

Nixon, ________Kennedy. Why

 

 

Did either candidate get angry during the debates yes ___no.

Which one

 

Which candidate seemed the most "at ease." ___Nixon, ___Kennedy

Has this series of debates been valuable to you yes, ___no.

In what way

 

 

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

152

In which way have you received the most information concerning
the debates the debate themselves, reading about

4__ta1king with others about it

people a lot some a little none.

Do you think it will have any effect on the way you vote

yes no. Why, or why not

 

k

Were you satisfied in the way the debates were handled yes,

no. (If no, please explain.) __.

~

Do you think this kind of debating should be a part of the next

election yes, _ no.
Do you have any further comments about the great debates of 1960

Thank you very much for your participation. Your contribution has
been extremely valuable. Please mail this questionnaire on

OCtObCr 2211‘ e

APPENDIX C

ADDITIONAL TABLES

155

0

N33 9

Avoaawuaoov

 

m.m~ n e.n~ o n.o~ ea h.n~ n .xuosaaz..ea
m.s~ as m.ma. n m.e~ mu o.- o“ n.m~ "a o.m N .oaouaa
o o m H a .e we a.e_mmmmmm o o .aoueaeaso
e.~ ~ n.m~ m m.- no a.e~ ea n.o~ so e.em a zone urea:
n.m~ m o.ma e m.oa o ~.n . n m.ea «a o synopses
~.HH m m.e~ e a.am «a m.o~ an o.- co o.m~ n «one:
e.nm no ~.ma ea m.m~ as ~.ee o~ c.he mm m.na ca oz
e.~ N ~.m m m.ma a ~.n m o.o n n.e a new
, adj
m.m~ m e.am a_, e~ ~.~n on ~.oe an “.mo ea tosses oz
«Lou so some .ma .mm m.ee e~ m.am mm m.om m soaua<
. _ . .mmmmmmm
mmwo .02 some .oz ueao .oz ease ..02. some .02 sumo .oz 4:.
.qu . no“ . we“ no” . new . you ,

 

 

muhkmua S Bahama 2° ”Nu—m Hugh MO Human

nu HQSH

156

 

 

 

 

«.5 ~ a.~m - o.- ~H a.e~ ca n.e~ - e.na ca seas ounce
N.n a a.@ m o.~ a H.n m e.na no «.ma a use» use
a.mm «N n.mn - o.- as o.me ea m.em we e.em m auea.eooo
«.me no m.o~ SN o.ne m~ n.5o ca e.~o on m.-. to scam o.aoe
hum H o m.n n . o o o usage use
. Aeaaaaoaoov mummxmm.mmmmmm
mmwo .oz ucuo .oz ucoo .oz uooo .oz ucoo .oz ucoo .02 ll.
we“ . no“ . no”. . womm . nomm nomH
.nnuulnnununnnnuuulr, .Huunuw .11nnnuuuuu.

 

mmacmmn abom< onszo 20 uNHm mqu<m ho Homhmm

9.3388 2 33a.

157

 

0.5m oa ~.o~ o o.n~ o o.mo. Ho m.oa on w.- n soon o.ooe
~.- o a.» m n.n m m.o o ~.~ a o.m~ m on
n.om so ~.n~ m~ o.mh no o.oe so m.o~ oo o.mo on. so»
e.m a o.e~ u a.o~ ea o.- no ~.H~ ma «.mm. e noon o.ooe
oao~ m ~.oa o n.o~ o ~.oo o ~.h o o.o ~ soououoao so:
nooo we shoe o~ o.Ho mm m.ho co ~.- on a.hm Na sensuous:

I

ooooouuaa

 

 

mSUDOOuZAOUzHA zo MNHm ”ugh ho Bug

.3 an:

158

TABLE 22

EFFECT OF POLITICAL PREFERENCE ON SIZE OF FAMILY

 

 

 

Republican Democrat Independent Refused or
no answer_‘

Per Per Ear Per

Cent Number Cent

Number Cent Number Cent Number
7.5 7 7.1 4 8.2

 

One 7 8.2 4

Two 23 27.1 15 28.3 27 27.6 18 36.7
Three 17 20.0 9 17.0 24 24.5 9 18.4
Four 22 25.9 10 18.9 18 18.4 7 14.3
Five 7 8.2 5 9.4 17 17.3 8 16.3

Six or more 9 10.6 10 18.9 5 5.1 3 6.1

TABLE 23

EFFECT OF POLITICAL PREFERENCE ON LEVEL OF EDUCATION

      

   

      
 

 

   

Democrat Independent Refused of“
no ansger

Per Per Pa;—

Cent__Number Cent Number Cent

   
 

M w

RepubliCan

     

 

 

Per
Number Cent Number

18 21.4 a 15.1 24 24.5 12 25.7

Grade school _
40 47.6 22 4l.5 47 48.0 18 40.0

Hugh school

College 26 31.0 23 43.4 27 27.5 15 33.3

159

 

mo~a

m.o~

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m ~.m m ¢.n n ¢.o~ m m.- H ouoa no xam

c o.w~ m o.m~ NH m.- - m.m o o.m~ N o>um

o o.w~ n o.m~ HN m.¢~ mm o.- o 0 each

m.nm m m.ma o m.ma pa ~.¢H. ma ~.n~ ma o.m~ N awash

o.Om o dom~ a m.am m~ moq~ mm m.nm ca m.nm m 038

. o a.m N ~.m m s.- Hg m.m o 0 one
uooo .oz uooo .oz uooo .oz uooo .oz uaoo .oz ucou .oz

pom new . new mom . you new

:+HH oHnm mus cum eon Nun

 

 

MnHz<m ho uNHm zo xMOZH <Ham2 mo Hommmm

on mam<fi

160

 

 

 

o.mh o ¢.om NN ~.~¢ mm m.- HN n.0H n o owonuoo

o.m~ N o.mm ea o.wo mo o.~o no o.~m n~ m.~m m aoooom one:

o 5.x m o.a w m.m~ cw n.5m m~ m.~o m Hoonom momma

.mmwo .oz ucoo .oz uoou .oz uaoo .02 upon .oz name .02 All
new . Mom _ pom . Mom uom . new

Ilwaa Ouua mun cum «um «ta III

 

onH<oDau zo NmnzH <Hamz mo Houmhm

an,uflm<fi

161

TABLE 32

EFFECT OF EDUCATION ON VIEWING SECOND DEBATE

  

QM~___ _.-

 

(Fad School Hihg Schol " '3'? #3.”:- " ’m“

Per Per Per '—— Fe;—
Number Cent Number Cent Number_ Cent Number Gag;

 

Ii

ggg~m‘ eta.
Watched Sgggggiggbagg,

Yes 11 68.8 13 50.0 13 72.2 37 61.7
No 5 31.2 13 50.0 5 27.8 23 38.3
Watched With,

Husband and wife 6 60.0 7 50.0 8 61.5 21 56.8
Outsiders 1 10.0 0 0 0 0 l 2.7
By self 0 0 2 14.3 3 29.1 5 13.5

Three or more 3 30.0 5 35.7 2 15.4 10 27.0

a.» . .__

162

TABLE 33

EFFECT OF EDUCATION ON KNOWLEDGE ABOUT DEBATES

 

 

 

Grade School High School __College Total
Per Per Per Per

Number Cent Number Cent Number Cent Number Cog;
Where Originated

Knew (Wash.) 2 14.3 10 41.7 7 43.7 19 35.2
Not know 12 85.7 14 58.3 9 56.3 35 64.8
Subject
Answer 1 7.1 5 20.8 5 31.2 11 20.4
No answer 13 92.9 19 79.2 11 68.8 43 79.6
masons, rites.

Nixon 5 35.7 6 25.0 9 60.0 20 37.9
Kennedy 2 14.3 2 8.3 2 13.3 6 13.2
Don't know 7 50.0 16 66.7 4 26.7 27 58.9

How Many Debs te_s_

 

 

Three 4 28.6 5 20.8 4 28.6 13 25.0
Four 2 14.3 5 20.8 S 35.7 12 23.1
Five 1 7.1 l 4.2 l 7.1 3 5.8
No answer 7 50.0 13 54.2 4 28.6 24 46.1
When in Next
Correct 2 14.3 6 24Lo 3 20.0 11 20.4
Wrong 2 14.3 3 12.0 3 70.0 8 14.8
No answer 10 71.4 16 64.0 9 60.0 35 64.8
£22 an: m
Two 3 21.4 10 41.6 9 64.3 22 42.3
Three 0 0 1 4.2 0 0 1 1.9
Other 2 14.3 1 4.2 1 7.1 4 7.7
n..~. know 9 64.3 12 50.0 4 23.5 25 43.1

A

¥

163

TABLE 34

EFFECT OF EDUCATION ON OPINION ABOUT DEBATES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

grade School High 37:11:92; ‘7‘}...2. :_ m“:
Per Per Per Per
___ Number Cent Number Cent Number Cent Number Cent
more. muss Elsie
Yes 6 42.9 9 37.5 7 46.6 22 41.5
No l 7.1 6 25.0 4 26.7 11 20.8
Don't know 1 7.1 2 8.3 0 0 3 5.6
No answer 6 42.9 7 29.2 4 26.7 17 32.1
InfluenCe gg_!g£igg
Yes 4 28.6 3 13.0 4 26.7 11 21.2
Nb 7 50.0 10 43.5 8 53.3 25 48.1
Not sure 0 0 1 4.3 0 0 l 1.9
No answer 3 21.4 9 39.2 3 20.0 15 28.8
Changed X353; $33
Yes 1 7.2 6 25.0 2 l2.5 9 16.7
N0 10 71.4 12 50.0 13 81.3 35 64.8
Not sure 3 21,4 6 25.8 1 6.2 10 18.5

(Continued)

164

TABLE 34 (Continued)

EFFECT OF EDUCATION ON OPINION ABOUT DEBATES

   

Gaerd Schol

   

 

 

 

Per Per Per Per

__. Number Cent Number Cent Number Cent Number Cent

Best Job $3,Tonight°s Debate

Nixon 2 14.3 4 16.7 5 31.3 11 20.4
Khnnedy O O 4 16.7 2 12.5 6 11.1
Draw 1 7.1 0 0 4 25.0 5 9.3
No opinion 11 78.6 16 66.7 5 31.3 32 59.3

Watch First

Yes 7 50.0 16 66.7 14 87.5 0 0
No 7 50.0 5 20.8 2 12.5 0 0
no answer 0 0 3 12.5 0 0 O 0

at 0 First Debate

_“-9_n

 

Nixon 2 14.3 2 8.3 3 18.8 0 0
Khnnedy 0 0 6 25.0 5 31.3 0 0
Draw 2 14.3 3 12.5 3 l8.8 0 0

no opinion 10 71.4 13 54.2 5 Bl.3 0 0

~

W H1 b School- “115mm“? Z:
Per Per Per Per
___ Number Cent Number Cent Number Cent Number Ceng

165

TABLE 35

EFFECT OF EDUCATION ON INTEREST IN DEBATES

 

 

w

~ —-=:;T-_
Colle e

 

Yes
No

No answer

Yes
No

No answer

Yes
No

No answer

Yes
No

Don't know

10

10

14.3 10 41.7
71.4 10 41.7
14.3 4 16.6
Read_About
33.3 12 54.5
66.7 8 36.4
0 2 9.1
§_e_g_t_1_ 93.112}; Programs.
28.6 8 33.3
57.1 11 45.8
14.3 5 20.8
71.4 17 70.8
14.3 2 8.3
14.3 5 20.8

10

62.5

37° 5

66.7
33.3

93.8

6.3

22

26

25

23

22

24

42

166

some

m.mn

o
o

0.02 ~

o
o

o.oo~ w

~.m

m.-

o.mo

o.mH

o.om

o.mn

 

 

m.~¢ m m.n~
o ~.m
o

H.nn c m.¢m

30:3 saws

m.“ a o.o~

c.0m c o.cm

m.~o w o.oo

°.On

coca

uuoa no sauna
waom
muovunuao

owfianvawnnnm

umamau oz

oz

mm»

 

uficflun nzoumm UZuzmH> 2° mNHm NHH=<M MO Houhhm

on uan<fi

 

167

 

Avoaawuaoov

 

 

 

 

 

 

o.on o.om o.~< o o.n~ a q.¢¢ m a song u.aoa

o.m~ m.- ~ n.o 3 ~.- N o muoaauu

o.m~ o.on ~.~¢ u 5.0H ~ ¢.¢q m o.oo~ a can“:

. any: am a

o.m~ o.on o.m~ n “.9” N ~.- q o scans: on

o.n~ o.om e.~m ed n.mm oH «.55 «H o.go~ H seagu<

o.n~ o.ooH ~.~¢ n o.w~ m o.m~ o o sous no:

on: . «.3 S .92. a 92 2 9.92 g :2:

unoo uaoo 2.00 .02 uaoo .oz 250 .oz unmu .03 I ll

Hum . you no.— 3 you 4 you uwm

l 5m Imam, la, 093,—. 03,—. 25
f

 

. R 33....

mua¢uun spoa< nunugsczu zo swam uuuz<u mo aoumuu

168

0.0m N

0.0m H

mock mH

 

 

 

 

Huoaafiuaoov um munca

m.mm oH c.nn oH o.ooH H uoanaa oz
c.n~ H o o.n H o ~.- ¢ o mucus
oym~ H 0.0m H o.mH m m.oH N N.- ¢ 0 uouuuoo

_ uxozm’fiaog
o.m~ H coon H n.¢c HH m.mn n o.nm oH o.ooH H uwanau Mango
o o a.m H o o o couna
o.mu m o.on H «.mN n noHc m «.we w o 039
$113de
o o m.~n o o.m~ a . ¢.¢¢ a o sous uoz
o.n~ H o.ooH N mrmm @ o m.n~ m c.ooH H Mach
Guns n o Q.HH N O.n~ m m.- m o mouah
. gamma...
mmwo .oz unoo .oz uauo .oz uaou ..oz unuo .oz uaou .oz JII
hum . hum . pom . hum pom nun
1.4., lawn: Jaw! Jamal wwwww w .5 1.4.5.!
mma<mun abon< umamazozu zo MNHm uqudm ma Huuhhu

169

 

AvmsaHucoov

 

 

o n.mH m momm ¢ n.0H m o um3maw oz
o.nn ooocH N momm OH ¢omn n 0.00 NH coooH H oz
oomN o nomw Q new H sooH m 0 mm»

gag
o.m~ o.om H m.mm 0 «.mn. s w.H~ m o soax u.non
o.mn coon H m.mm o noH< m H.Ho HH 0 oz

0 «.mN n comm m H.HH N ooeeH H mmw

gagom.i

o H.Hc u coca o Gown 5 o 3063 uwcon
o.m~ o moHH N comm m Mann 6 0 oz
opnn o.ooH N Hrm¢ m O.n~ m mohN m o.ooH H mm»

3.55%
mmwo uamu .oz uauo .cz uauo .oz uauu .oz uaoo .oz JII
you you . hum .

wa

. . non . you yum
, 6>Hh Hack . manna 038 one

me<de HDOQQVZOHZHQO zO MNHm NHHZ<N m0 Homhmm

an nunga

IFO

 

 

 

 

 

 

oomN H o.om H H.H. H H.oo m o.mn oH o.ooH H coHquoimm
o.om ~ 0 m.HH N H.0H N H.HH N o aqua
o.m~ H o m.mm o o ~.- q o moaaauu
o 0.0m H m.HH N H.0H ~ H.HH N o cotz
”SHE mmm. Madam
o o o.Hm o m.¢m o ¢.m~ n o 02
o.ooH N «.mo mH n.nq n o.o~ NH o.o~ ~H o.ooH H may
3 umuHm noun:
o.on N o.on H m.~m m H.~H m «.mm m o aoHcHao oz
obnw H o o.e H H.m H H.o H c.coH H swan
. o o o.HH m o o.o~ m c muons»:
o.n~ H o.om H npmm e ~.mH ~ o.o~ m o aotz
. mmuHaoa mam u.
woo .oz 250 .oz 300 .oz 300 .oz 230 .oz uauo .02 ll
hum . uwm . Hum . yum yum . Hum
H.H.lenll #2.! Jamil 8.3a nlolafll I'fl-olll

 

 

 

HuoaaHuaoov an ”Hues

mMH<mmn Haon< chszo 20 NNHm Monch kc Bowman

171

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o o m.NH N N.oH N N.NN q o socx u.:oa
o o m.n H N.oH N o.m H 0 oz
o.coH q Q.ooH N q.Nm «H c.0o m N.Nn mH o.ooH H aux
mumnmn.mmwz suumm
o o m.NH N m.w H N.NN ¢ o uoamau oz
o.om N 9.0m H m.mm o o.mn m m.mm o o.ooH H 02
0.0m N o.om H m.Nm m n.0H N m.¢c m c any
manumoum Mango Mum
o o w.HH N m.@ H n.oH m o uo3mau oz
o.om N o.om H «.mN m o.mm m m.mm m 0 oz
o.om ~ c.0n H m.mm oH H.oH N o.om m o.ooH H .mw
. u _ mmwnc uuom
o o m.HH N m.m H N.oH m o uoamaa oz
o.on N 0.0m H m.nm o o.nn o ¢.mn N o.ooH H oz
o.on N o.om H m.Nm m N.oH N ¢.¢¢ m o mu»
. . _ uaon< coxHoa
uauo .oz uamo .oz ucoo .oz uawo .02 name .02 acme .oz All
pom . non _ you . nom nom hum
II.me u>Hm usom means 039 «no

 

 

 

 

 

mm9<mmn 2H HmNMMHzH zo MNHm NHH2<M ho Bowman

an uam<H

Yes

No

Husband and wife
Outsiders
Self

Three or more

g

EFFECT OF POLITICAL PREFERENCE ON
VIEWING SECOND DEBATE

Regublican

Number Cent Number Cent Number

14

172

TABLE 40

Democ ra t
Per Per

Watching
87.5 6 75.0

12.5 2 25.0

With Whom
53.8 3 50.0
0 0 0
23.1 0 0
23.1 3 50.0

Indegendent _kBefused

10
10

 

Per Per*-
Cent Number Cent

50.0 7 70.0
50.0 3 30.0
54.5 5 71.4

V 9.1 o o
9.1 1 14.3
27.3 1 14.3

173

TABLE 41

EFFECT OF POLITICAL PREFERENCE ON KNOWLEDGE ABOUT DEBATES

Knew
Did not know

Answer

No answer

Nixon
Kennedy
Don"t know

Three
Your
Five

No answer

Knew
Did not know

No answer

Two
Three
Other

 

Renublican Democrat Endeggndent Refuggg_m‘
Per Per Per Per

Number Cent Number

Cent Number Cent

Ori ination

 

10 62.5 a 50.0

6 37.5 4 50.0

MQW

15 93.8 4 50.0

1 6.2 4 50.0
112.111.29.110.

56.3 4 50.0

18.8 o 0

4 25.0 4 50.0

E2!.!E£2.2222£22

6 27.3 3 33.3

6 27.3 1 11.1

6 27.3 2 22.3

4 18.1 3 33.3
whenieléei

3 18.8 4 50.0

18.8 0 0

10 62.4 a 50.0
112212211123;

10 62.5 2 28.6

o o 0 0

6 37.5 5 71.4

14
6

17

00wa HM

w

16

14

70.0
30.0

85.0
15.0

2500
5.0
70.0

10.5
21.0
26.3
42.2

15.0
5.0
80.0

26.3
0
73.7

Number Cent

7 70.0
3 30.0

66.6

33.4

20.0

200 0
6 60.0
2 15.4
3 23.0
4 30.3
4 30.8
1 14.3
0 0
6 85.7
5 45.6
1 9.8
5 45.6

 

174

TABLE 42

EFFECT OF POLITICAL PREFERENCE ON 0P1N10N AB“ DEEAT£S

 

 

 

Republican Democra1__, ‘FCDDVTdeNT _R6£0365
Per Per Per Per

Number Cent Number Cent Nmmber Cent Ngmbgr_ _P601

LA“

Debates Change Mi~ds

Yes 7 43.8 5 62.5 6 30.0 4 40.0
No 4 25.0 1 12.5 5 25.0 2 20.0
Don°t know 5 31.2 2 25.0 9 45.0 4 40.0
fig!g_1nf1uence gg‘Voting
Yes 3 18.8 2 25.0 5 26.3 1 11.2
No 11 68.7 4 50.0 5 26.3 S 55.5
Don’t know 2 12.5 2 25.0 9 4?.4 3 33.3
Chef; 8 11 Mu.g
Yes 2 12.5 3 33.5 22.0 f 1
No 13 81.3 4 50.0 . 41.0 10 133.0
Not sure 1 6.2 1 12.5 40.0 9 0
Bfigééffimfi-
Nixon 5 31.3 0 0 3 15.0 3 ’“.V
Kennedy 1 6.3 3 37.5 2 10.0 2 2
Draw 3 18.7 1 12.: f“ 0 1 ". '
No opinion 7 43.7 4 50.3 15 75.0 5 ’ .

06166 11's“ Q¢§§;:.

Yes 12 70.6 7 159.0 9 45.0 9 $0.?
No 4 23.5 0 0 45.0 E 1%.t
No answer 1 5.9 0 0 2 10.0 0 10
.EEEEEE.§S£E:§§£E;1§£u§E

Nixon 4 25.0 0 0 0 0 3 4:.

Kennedy 2 12.5 5 62.5 2 19.0 2 28.5
Draw 3 18.8 1 12.5 3 15.0 1 14.3
No opinion 7 43.7 2 25.0 15 75.9 1 14.3

 

 

k

175

TABLE 43

EFFECT OF POLITICAL PREFERENCE 0N INTEREST IN DEBATES

 

 

 

 

 

-FF—i ngublican Democrat 4M ifiéégéflggg;1_ H.§SE££E£:::
Per Per Per Per
__. Number Cent Number Cen:__Number Cent Number__§g§g.
1.1.1.169. 112.921
Yes 6 37.5 4 50.0 5 25.0 7 70.0
No 9 56.3 3 37.5 11 55.0 3 30.0
No answer 1 6.2 1 12.5 4 20.0 0 0
52.13. 0.9.9.65.
Yes 10 62.5 3 37.5 6 ,30.0 6 60.0
No 5 31.3 4 50.0 10 50.0 4 00.9
No answer 1 6.2 1 12.5 4 20.0 0 0
Seen $55.5. 1:1: 5.13112
Yes 6 37.5 4 50.0 7 35.0 5 30.”
N0 8 50.0 3 57.5 9 45.0 5 $2.1
No answer 2 13.5 1 12.5 6 20.0 9 0
Plan £1.83.th ~26... 12:13
Yes 12 75.0 6 75.3 14 73.0 10 Fifi.“
N0 1 16.2 1 12.5 2 10.0 0 0
No answer 3 18.8 1 12.5 4 20.0 1%

 

 

 

 

‘_

1%

 

 

 

 

o H.HH H H.HN w o.o~ m H.HH H o.ooH H «mun» can» one:
o H.HH H m.nH m ~.o ,H o o «Hum
o o o o H.HH H o «HouHmuso
o ~.- N m.e~ n o.o¢ o «.ee ¢ o kuamaau no com
o.ooH H o.mn n .m.om H m.mm m «.mm m o «HHa-uaanmam
. . .mmmm.mmmm.
o o.oH H o.n H H.H~ e o o “mama. oz
c chow N chnm H npo~ m m.nm m o . . oz
o.ooH H apes H crow ~H op~m oH “poo w o.ooH H a.»
... . . . uaHsoH> . .
uaoo .oz uauu uoz Hugo .oz anon .oz «coo .oz uaoo .oz
ham . hum . huh . you . . you . Hum .
IMAM, Idwnmlll “Ell onn [film '3'

 

uy<nmn nzooam ozHanH> 2o umnzu <Hnux no aommuu

.3 munch.

177

 

Avoanuaoov

 

 

 

o.ooH H o.mm n c.5c a ~.o¢ s o.nm n o.coH H aoax u.aon
. o H.HH H m.nH m m.nH N o o Hawanuu
o m.mm n m.om n c.o¢. o e.¢¢ e o aoxwz
‘ 22: gm .3...
o.ooH H H.eo o “.mH‘ ¢H ~.ow nH a.ma m o.ooH H “mama. oz
o m.nn m m.o~ n «.mH ~ H.HH H o Hana<
338 mm a

o o.nn m m.on s o.n~ n m.- ~ a song uoz
o.ooH H ehqe e ~Lno «H ohms oH firms 5 o.ooH H Anugzv scan
yawn ,.oz aqua .oz anon .02 gave .02 game .02 asap .0: ‘11

you . ‘, yum . Mum . hum . huh . hum .
HHMMMIII: .IIJWMWII. :wlmuMllu o. .ungwmwul. nllmuwllu 1.

 

 

 

we Hands

mean: 5 £535 IO Nun—2H an! 3 SEN

178

 

 

 

 

o H.HH q ¢.H¢ a H.o¢ H w.HH H o nuance oz

o o n.oH ~ c.o H H.HH H o «no:

o H.HH H o o o o manna

o.ooH H ¢.¢¢ q H.~¢ a H.oe H H.HH H o.ooH H 039

ugoz.xmmm.mmm

o.ooH H o.nm n H.mo ~H a.oH oH m.HH H o “wanna oz

o H.HH H H.H~ c c H.HH H 0 song ”oz

o m.mm n «.mH n H.m~ m H.HH H o.ooH H song

g 382 «IH 343. .

o.on H ~.- ~ «.H¢ a H.oe H n.¢¢ q o.ooH H 30:3 u.aon

. o H.HH H m.oH H . c c .. o «>Hm

o.on H o.mm n m.nH n c.o~ n m.mn m o upon

. c H.HH H n.¢~ n n.nn m H.HH H o «muse

mmwo .oz Haoo .az game .02 Home .oz Hauo .oz uaoo .oz J]:
an: . you . Hum . huh . you . hum

 

 

«guano g g 20 as flan: ho HUME”

€35 ~88 3 Bass

179

 

 

 

 

o o.nn n o.Hn HH o.on H o.HH H o.ooH H ooHoHoo oz
ooooH H H.HH H o m.H~ m o o soon
o H.HH n «.mH m H.H H o o Hoooooz
o H.HH H m.o~ n ¢.H~ m ~.- N o aotz
.mmmwmmm.mmm.mmmm
o H.HH H n.oH ~ o.o~ No n.mm m o ooHoHoo oz
o.ooH H o.nn m ~.mo ~H H.oo oH H.oo o H oz
o m.mm m n.o~ n H.o H .o o zoo»
o5: zoo» 3
o o.oo o m.o~ n H.o~ o o.o¢ o o soc; H.ooo
ooooH H «.mn m o.Ho HH o.o¢ .o o.nn n. . 0 oz
_ o H.HH ~ z.nH n m.mm n o o.ooH H ooz
. . .ummmmm.mm.mmmmmmmmm
o ~.- ~ o.Hm o H.o¢ H o.mm m o 32; ooooo
o.ooH H ~.- N m.o~ n «.mH ~ ~.- H o oz
. o o.mn n H.Ho a o.oo o H.HH N o.ooH H ooz
. . .mmmflm.mummmm.mmmmmmm

unou .oz uauo .oz uaoo .9: wave .02 uaoo .oz uaoo .oz - III

,uum . hum . yum yum . yum yum
erHH nmmmuwllu .Ildmuwnl. Illmumllu .IIHHNWII. .numnm:||_ 1|

 

 

muhdnmn HDOQ<.ZOHIH&O.ZO NflQZH «HOME ha HUNMMM

we man<H

180

Avoaawunoov

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H.HH H n.oH H H.HH H H.HH H o ooHono oz
o.ooH H o H.HH o H.HH H H.HH o o.ooH H oz
o 9.3 H H.HH z H.HH n «:3 o o 3»
Hooo<wolom
o H.HH H m.oH H H.HH NH H.HH H o oooooo oz
o.ooH H H.HH H H.HH H o.oo o o.oo o o.ooH H oz
. o H.HH H H.Ho o H.oH o H.HH H o no»
wwlumfim “32: 2:23.
o .13 .H o.HH o 92. o H.HH m 9.2: H 82:8 oz
9.2: H H.HH H o.HH .H H.H. H o o. :95
_ o H.HH H H.HH o H.HH o o o zoooooz
o H.HH H HRH H o6 H H.HH H o ooaHz
. mnamHoHHzflmmw-q
o o n.n H o6. H H.HH H o 332... oz
o H.HH H H.H H. H.H; H «.3 .H H oz
92: H 33 m «.3 HH H.H: H «.3 .H o :9
. . . 33qu soon: A
UQOU .02 “600 .02 UQUU .0! [a0 .02 HOOD .02 ”GOO .02 I
hum . Hum . hum . hum , Mum . hum
IIHHIHI nlfifl IIHIHHII H-H H.H H-H

 

 

mflhdmnfi 2H HmMINHZH BO NMQZH (Ham! ho HUMhhm

he mandfi

181

 

 

 

 

I

 

9.2: H 3: H 3: H o.HH n H.HH H o 88. rooo
. o o H.H H H... H H.HH H o .oz
o 9.8 o H3 H.H H.HH HH oéo o 9.2: H 3»
328 as: :33
o H.HH H H.H: H 3.HH n H.HH H o 332.. oz
952 H H...HH H H.HH oH H.Hn a 3.3 3 952 H oz
. ow HHHH H 38 H 3.HH H 3.3 3 o 8H
. 4 «flags.»
uaou 3! £50 .03 9600 .0! 330 .0! uaoo .02 uaoo .oz
-uom non Ho.—

 

 

mfigg 3;ng 2° :2 CHE MO HUME—u

Hose—388 H.H Sufi

 

EFFECT OF EDUCATION. FA
AND MEDIA INDEX

  

grede School
Number gent Number Cen;_ Number Cent

182

TABLE 48

ON BASEBALL KNOWLEDGE

 

 

MIL! SIZE, POLITICAL PREFERENCE

 

 

High Schoo1i';;Qoilege:;_qt_;HTEt;1'fi;_
Per Per Per Per

Nbrld Series Record

Number Cent

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rhee 4 28.6. 9 42.3 6 37.5
th know or not
interested 10 71.4 15 57.7 10 62.5
Biggblicen ngocret Indegendent Refused
Per Per Per Per
___ Number gent Number Cent Number Cent Number CEEE
Politieel Preference
Knew 5 31.2 1 12.5 10 50.0 3 25.0
Not know or not
interested 11 68.8 7 87.5 10 50.0 6 75.0
One _ _;Iwo Three ~ _
Per—' Per Per
___ Number Cent Number Cent Number Cent
Family Size
Knew 0 O 6 33.3 3 25.0
Net know or not interested 1 100.0 12 66.7 9 75.0

‘g

(Continued)

183

TABLE 48 (Continued)

EFFECT OF EDUCATION, FAMILY SIZED POLETICAL PREFERENCE

 
 

 

 

 

 

AND MEDIA INDEX ON BASEBALL KNOWLEDGE
,. . , .. MW “TM—‘1‘: 2"“
Four ___I Five _ 52$”.-e-
Per IEr Fer
Number Cent Number “gent Number {ff§_

 

 

Femilz §$£S

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Knew 7 41.1 2 100.0 1 25.0
Not know or not interested 10 53.9 0 0 3 73.3
For Fer flex
___ Number Cent Number Cent Ngmgggwmggxg
Index
Knew 0 0 4 44.4 5 33.3
Not know or not interested 1 100.0 5 55.6 10 65.7
Per Fer Per
__H Number Cgfliflmfigmggt Afient Number Cent
Knew 6 3-.6 4 44.4 0 0
Not know or not 13 68.4 5 55.6 1 180.0

interested

e_.—_..

184

TABLE 49

EFFECT OF EDUCATION 0N VIEWING TEIRD DEBATE

 

 

 

 

 

Per Fer Per
__1 Number Cent Numbegu_cegt _ __ Number__gggtl
Legit;

Yes . 2 20.0 19 66.0 18 81.8
No 8 80.0 9 45.0 4 13.2
Who, with.

Husband-wife 1 10.0 6 22.3 5 2?.8

Son-daughter 1 10.0 1 3.? 3 C

Outsider 1 10.0 2 7.4 3 16.6
Self 6 60.0 11 40.7 S 27.8
Three or more 1 10.0 7 25.9 5 2f.8

# . A _ -.—— .— A. “_W‘

185

TABLE 50

EFFECT OF EDUCATION ON KNOWLEDGE ABOUT DEBATES

 
   
 

   

        

_. .H_. ._._.. ~ ~' —- C. v~-

 

 

 

 

 

 

grade School m3 h—coShol ___9017
Per Per Per
___o Number Cent Number Cent Number Cent
Qgiginetion

Correct 0 0 2 7.1 2 9.1
Incorrect or

not know 9 90.0‘ 12 42.9 6 27.3

Pertiel 1 10.0 14 50.0 14 63.6

Subject ”

Answer 2 20.0 10 55.6 15 68.2
No ensver 8 80.0 18 44.4 7 31.8
89.21:; M
Nixon 0 0 0 2 14.3
Kinnedy 100.0 20 90.9 8 57.2
no enswer 0 2 9.1 4 28.6
.1122 m 229.222.;

Two 0 0 0 0 1 4.5
Three 1 10.0 3 10.7 1 4.5
Four 0 0 9 32.1 13 59.3
Five 0 0. 0 0 9.0
no snswsr 9 90.0 16 5?.2 22.7
m... u. use.

Correct (21st) 1 11.1 17.8 6 27.3
Wrong - O 0 17.8 4 18.2
no ensuer 8 88.9 18 64.4 12 54.5
Egg.§§21,More
One 3 30.0 11 39.3 12 54.5
TWO 1 10.0 7.1 6 27.3
Four 0 o 2 7.1 0 0
No answer 6 60.0 13 ‘46.5 4 18.2

 

TABLE 51

EFFECT OF EDUCATION 0N OPINION ABOUT DEBATES

 

 

 

 

mag-gum M -— __ __ “ V ' H; my... _~ -’¥’:Mwm
Grade School High School Celiege
m -- ”a. -‘-MA‘ . —_.g,
Per Fe: Fe:
Number Cent Numbe§¥_Cent ¥ _§am§er Cegg

 

 

 

 

Changing Minds

Yes 6 60.0 10 35.8 7 31.8
No 1 10.0 9 32.1 10 45.5
No opinion 3 30.0 9 32.1 5 22.7

Influenggixgg£_Vote

Yes 3 30.0 6 21.4 5 22.7
No 4 40.0 17 60.7 17 77.3
No opinion 3 30.0 5 17.9 0 0

.thénved Ln 11:3

Yes 1 10.0 3 10.7 9 40.9
N0 6 60.0 19 67.9 12 34.5
No opinion 3 30.0 6 27.4 - 4.6
E9. 2.1.... 9:92-, 9121* Set 212214 321.1%?
Nixon 1 10.0 9 32.1 9 40.9
Kinnedy 2 20.0 3 10.7 5 22.7
Drew 1 10.0 5 17.9 2 9.1
No opinion 6 60.0 11 39.3 6 27.3

 

EFFECT OF EDUCATION ON INTEREST IN DEBATES

187

TABLE 52

College

Qgede SchooI High School

L

 

First
Second
Both

Nixon
Kennedy
Drew (both)

no opinion

Nixon
annedy
Drew

No opinion

k

Per

Number Cent

Per

Number Cent

 

Witch Others

Best Job

0
'1!
re.
1"!
Q
(’9

10
2
14

*mmm

Per
Numbgr Cent
2 18.2
1 9.1
4 36.4
3 27.3
g§g_Did

O 0
3 30.0
1 10.0
6 60.0
1 10.0
2 20.0
2 20.0
5 50.0

(Continued)

4

 

15

35.8
7.1

50.0

14.3
14.3
1.7.9

53.5

15

12

9.1
13.6
68.2

9.1

13.6
54.5
4.5

27.4

36.4
27.4
18.1
18.1

188

TABLE 52 (Continued)

 

EFFECT OF EDUCATION ON INTEREST IN DEEAIES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

grade School H‘ifi'fsgbmiu ”9511935.:
Per Ear Per
Number Cent Number_ ngt + Number Cent
Talked About
Yes 30.0 11 39.3 16 72.7
No 50.0 15 53.5 23.3
No answer 20.0 2 7.2 0 C
Read About

Yes 30.0 11 39.3 19 86.4
No 50.0 15 53.6 3 13.6
No ensuer 20.0 2 7.1 0

£22 91:13. 2:95:22:
Yes 50.0 13 . 46.4 13 59.1
No 30.0 11 39.3 9 40.9
No ensver 20.0 4 14.3 0

Watch Next Debate
Yes 4 40.0 20 71.4 16 72.8
No 40.0 6 21.4 5 22.7
No ensuer 2 20.0 2 7.2 1 4.5

£11.12: .22 9.2 Called mu.

Yes 6 60.0 21 80.8 19 .86.4
No 1 10.0 2 7.7 3 13.6
No shower 3 30.0 3 11.5 0 C

 

189

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o c.om m H.oo o H.Hq. m w.nm m w.~¢ m «Hum
m.~w n 0.0: o o o.m~ m H.H H o ouoa_uo wanna
o Q ~.- w m.@ H H.H H o.w~ N umvHuuno
m .HH H o o o o H .3 H 8238
o.n~ N 0.0m m H.HH H cowN m 0.0m n m.¢H H owHSuvnonmnm
H8 ole
¢.~H H o.o~ N n.mn m c.0m c o.m~ q o.m~ N oz
ovum n crow a seam o o.on o ¢.HH oH ¢.HH n mow
mmmv .bz . uamo .oz unoo .oz uaoo .oz unoo .02 menu .02
,uem . mom . new . Hem . new . new .
NHm o>Hm unom conga one one

 

 

338 95:. ozHHHHE, zo H.HH..." SE: .3 SEE

mm finfia

it

190

AvonnHunoov

 

 

 

 

 

o H.HH H 3.3H H o.on m o o oooooo oz
3.Hm H H.oo 3 3.Hw n o.oH H o.oo oH o.ooH 3 zoooooz
3..~H H o o o H .a H o .8tz

. Hon: a flu
o.on 3 H.HH m 3.33 3 H.HH H H.HH m. H.HH 3 Hooooo oz
once 3 3.33 3 3.33 n H.H3 m H.H3 o H.H3 H Hoaooc
H.HH n o.oo o H.33 o H.HH. 3 o.om H H.H3 H HoHoHoH
nhHo n opo3 3 H.HH H H.H3 m o.on H H.H3 m oooooo
. . . . _ on no uuouuoonu

o o o o.nH H .. o 3.3H H ooooooo.
u... .. . H. . any ...
noon 62 381. .oz noon 62 Home .oz Home .oz once 62 i
-uom . Mom . hum . new . new . not .

!p_uwm o>Hm anon manna 039 one

 

 

muscmmd HDOQ< munuflzczu no uNHm aon<M mo HUMhhm

3m HHH3H

191

 

H.HH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o.oH 3 o.o3 3 H H.HH 3 H.HH H H.HH 3 ooHoHoo oz
. o . o o H.H H H.H H o boom
H.HH H o H.HH H H.HH H H.HH H H.3H H ooa
H.HH H H.33 H 3.HH H H.H3 H H.HH H H.HH H ooo
. . 9:! NE! ”and .
H.HH H o.oH H H.33 3 o.HH. H H.HH oH 3.HH H Hoaooo oz
H.HH H o.oH H H.HH H H.H. H H.H ~.H H.3H H moon:
o.HH H o.oH H H.HH H H.HH. H 3.HH H H.3H H HHoHHv ooooooo
_ . 338 one: Mm o3:
o.oH H 3.HH, H 3.33 3 H.HH H o.oH H H.H3 H Hoaooo oz
o o o H.H H H.H H o o>HH
o.oH H 3.3 3 3.3 3 H.HH H H.HH 3 H.H3 H .38
. o H.HH H H.HH H . o H.3H H H.3H H conga
o. o.H.H H o o o c o3.
.338 H.HH... 13$
.888 .oz 2.8 .3. Home 6.. -...Ha..o__o__. __..o.H adieu. ._ ..oz noon 6: 1
Mom 7 new _ hum . he.— . you . .Hem .
.1!de . Hudht, x .Hq—Oh 0.0a . O’H . 08

 

2.3.: 8.88 3H 5.3.

192

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o.HH H o.o3 3 H.33 3 o.oH o H.HH H H.HH H ooHoHoo oz
H.HH H o.oH H o 3.HH H H.H H o soon
o.HH H o.oH H o H.HH H H.HH H 3.HH H Hoooooz
H.HH H o.o3 3 H.HH H H.H H H.HH H H.H3 H ooHHz
833 EHHHH. mm Mela noon mmm mHHIz
o o.oH H H.HH H H.H H H.3H H H.3H H ooHoHoo oz
H.HH o H.HH H H.33 H H.HH H 3.HH HH H.H3 H oz
H.HH H o.o3 3 o o.HH H H.H H H.H3 H Ho»
_ 33H: noon commune
o o.oH H o H.H H H.HH 3 H.3H H ooHoHHo oz
o.HH o H.HH H H.33 3 3.HH oH H.HH H H.H3 H oz
H.HH H o.oH H H.HH H H.H H H.3H .H H.H3 H o.»
. . . «nob know ounuHHHmHHH .
o o.o3 3 H.HH H H.HH 3 H.HH H H.3H H ooHoHoo oz
H.HH 3 o.oH H H.HH H H.HH 3 H.HH H H.3H H oz
oHoH 3 o.oH H H.HH H -H.HH 3 H.HH 3 3.HH H Ho»
. Hoes: umHumoAm
boo . uoz.. oaoo .oz Homo .oz been .oz noou .oz Hooo °oz
new . hum . you .. new . new . Hum .
irNHmrl ham Mach .00Hn—H. . 03H. 08

 

 

1...... -

mm and."

H.H3”— gflh g IOHIHHO IO an 8.5st we HUME”

193

II‘

 

 

AvonaqunOOv

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H o.oH H H.33 o H.H3 H H H.HH H ooHoHHo oz
H.HH H 3.HH H H.HH H H.3H H H H.3H H soon
H.HH H o.oH H . o H.HH H H H.H3 H Hoooooz
H.HH H H.H3 3 H.HH H o H H.3H H ootz
. . oooooH mm Hon noon oHn on:
H.HH H H.H3 3 H.HH H H.HH 3 H.H3 o 3.HH H .ooHoHoo oz
H.HH H o H.HH H o.HH H 3.HH H o HHooHv sooo
o.oH 3 H.H3 3 H.HH H H.3H H 3.HH 3 H.HH 3 Hoooooz
H.HH H o.eH H H.HH H 3.H H H.H H H.3H H ootz
. . . 83qu a Now my. a oJam .
o o.oH H H.HH H H.3H H H o oooz
H.HH H H.HH H H.HH H H.HH H H 3.HH H noon
3 H.HH H H.HH H o H.3H H H.3H H oooooH
H.HH H 3.HH H H.33 3 H.HH 3 H.3H H H.3H H ooHHH
. . omuuaoe Hague Hobo: .w
,unov:..oz unoo .03 noon .ol uneu .ol menu. you been .02
mo& .. .uom . hum . new . hum . new
Hum 0>flh hunch 00kg

 

Hanan»: zH HHquHzH zo HHHH HHHxHH He Hozzzu

on Manda.

194

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H.HH H o H.HH H H.H H H.3H H H.3H H Hosoo. oz
H.HH H o o H H.HH 3 H.3H H oz
H.HH H H.HHH oH H.HH H H.HH HH H.HH H 3.HH H ooH
_ g 333 .oIH. m a 3
o o H.HH H H.H H H.3H H H.3H H guano. oz
H.HH H H.HH H H.HH H H.HH H H.HH H H.3H H oz
H.HH H H.HH H H.HH H H.HH H H.HH H 3.HH H .oH
cannon axoz noun:
o o o H.HH H 3.HH H H.3H H Hoaoo. oz
H.HH H H.HH H H.HH H H.HH H H.HH H H.H3 H oz
H.HH H H.HH H H.HH H H.HH 3 H.H3 H H.H3 H Ho»
. mammmmmw umzuo Guam
o o o H.H H H.3H H H.3H H ooHoHoo oz
H.HH 3 H.HH H H.HH H H.HH H H.HH H H.HH H oz
H.HH 3 H.HH H H.HH H H.H3 H H.HH H H.HH 3 o.»
. ‘ uaonc vaom
o o o 3.H H H H.3H H ooHoHoo oz
H.HH 3 H.H3 3 3.33 3 H.HH H H H.3H H oz
H.HH 3 H.HH H H.HH H H.H3 H H 3.HH H o.»
. . V .mummmmm HooHH HoxHoa .
0000 .02 uflou .02 9000 .02 unoo. .02 0000 .02 uflflu .02 ll
F F “F H.H Hon . H.H
: Mum gram H00h 00kg 039 08

 

 

mua<mmn 2H Hmmxmth 20 MNHm muuxth MG HDMMLN

H H33 H88 HH H.HHHH

EFFECT OF POLITICAL PREFERENCE 0N VIEWING OF THIRD DEBATE

  

3.298 1can

 

You

No

luaband-vifc
Daughter
Out-idor
Throo or more

801! or no
anlwer

—E_

17
6

04%

u

11

195

TABLE 57

  

  

"ob-

 
 

 

 

Dogocrat I gifidihothéIEW-I' $8
Par Par Per Per

Number Cont Number Cent Number Cent Number Cent
firtching

73.9 8 80.0 12 57.0 83.3

26.1 2 20.0 9 43.0 16.7
mm

17.4 1 10.0 8 38.1 66.7

13.0 1 10.0 1 4.8 0

13.0 2 20.0 1 4.8 0

21.7 4 60.0 4 19.0 0

47.8 2 20.0 7 33.3 22.3

196

TABLE 58

EFFECT OF POLITICAL PREFERENCE ON KNOWLEDGE ABOUT DEBATES

figgublican Democrat Indegendent

 

Correct

Incorrect or
no eneuer

Partial

Anauer
Nb aneuer

Nixon
Kennedy
No aneuer

Tho

Three
Four

Five

no aneuer

Correct
Wrong
No eneuer

One
Two
Pour

No aneuer

14

12
11

13

00090

12

13

10

Per Per
gum-2.29.
8.7 1 10.0
30.5 5 50.0
60.8 4 40.0
Subject
52.8 4 40.0
47.2 6 60.0
mum
43.5 1 10.0
56.5 6 60.0
39.0 3 30.0
mmgebeteg
0 0 0
13.0 0 0
34.8 4 40.0
0 2 20.0
52.2 4 40.0
$.51.ng
26.1 3 30.0
17.4 0 0
56.5 7 70.0
322mm:
43.5 5 50.0
13.0 3 30.0
8.7 0 0
34.8 2 20.0

Per

Refused

Per

lumber gent Number Cent Number Cent Number Cent

 

10
10

13

14

OQHH

11

14

11

4.8

47.6
47.6

38.1

61.9

66.7

33.3

4.8

4.8

38.1

52.3

9.5

23.8

66.7

38.1
9.6

52.3

‘h: C) H. h:

N

mover-O

:-

83.3
16.7

50.0

50.0

66.7
33.3

16.7

33.3

50.0

16.7

16.7

66.6

50.0
16.7

33.3

 

EFFECT OF POLITICAL PREFERENCE ON OPINION ABOUT DEBATES

197

TABLE 59

Regublican Democrat

Yes
No

No opinion

Yes
No

No opinion

Yes
No

No opinion

Nixon
Kennedy
Draw

No opinion

¥

Number Cent Number Cent NUmber Cent Number

18

17
4

9

Best Job on

Per Per

M 211.11;
34.8 3 30.0

26.1 6 60.0
39.1 1 10.0

Influence Your vote

8.7 1 10.0
78.3 9 90.0
13.0 3 30.0

mammal.

8.7 1 10.0
73.9 8 80.0
17.4 1 10.0

52.2 H 0 0

0 5 50.0
8.7 3 30.0
39.1 2 20.0

Indegendent

Third m

10

Per

42.9
33.3
23.8

. 45.0

45.0

10.0

42.9
38.0

19.1

23.8
19.1

9.5
47.6

Refused

Per
cage

50.0
16.7
33.3

33.3
33.3
33.4

16.7
66.6
16.7

33.3
16.7
16.7

33.3

 
  

EFFECT OF POLITICAL PREFERENCE ON INTEREST IN DEBATES

_. ._. _..._. __ __....

198

TABLE 60

  
 
 

 
 

  
 
 

  
 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_ggpubIIcenih DemocrEt “_‘Independent RefEEedN
Per Per Per Per
Number Cent Number Cent Number Cent Number_ngggg
2222mm
First 7 30.4 1 10.0 6 28.6 0
Second 3 13.0 1 10.0 1 4.7 16.7
Both 13 56.6 8 80.0 14 66.7 83.3
mmwflam
Nixon 4 17.5 0 0 3 4.4 0
Kennedy 3 13.0 7 70.0 7 33.3 33.3
Both 5 21.7 1 10.0 1 14.7 33.3
no opinion 11 47.8 2 20.0 10 47.6 33.4
Best gg§.23_8econd
Nixon 6 26.2 0 0 4 19.0 50.0
Kennedy 1 4.3 7 70.0 4 19.0 0
Both 5 21.7 1 10.0 3 14.4 33.3
No opinion 11 47.8 2 20.0 10 47.6 16.7
mmm
Tel 13 56.6 5 50.0 11 52.4 16.7
No 8 34.8 S 50.0 9 42.9 66.6
No opinion 2 8.6 0 0 1 4.7 16.7

(Continued)

  
 

Yes
No

No answer

Yes
No

No answer

Yes
No

No answer

Yes
No

No answer

_

.EFFECT OF POLITICAL PREFERENCE ON INTEREST IN DEBA

Rep—ubi ian " Demcrat

199

TABLE 60 (Continued)

 

 

 

Per Per

Number Cent Number Cent

13

N

13

17

Read about Debates

56.5 4 40.0
34.8 6 60.0

8.7 0 O

Seen Other Programs

56.5 5 50.0
34.8 5 50.0
8.7 O 0
meme-222s...
73.9 9 90.0
17.4 1 10.0

 

  
 

TES

 

 

Independent

Number Gags Numbegmagegg

14

10

Per

57.2
38.1

4.7

76.2
9.5

14.3

Regused_“
Per

2 33.3
3 50.0
1 16.?
3 50.0
2 33.3
1 16.7
2 33.3
2 33.3
2 33.4
3 50.0
2 33.3
1 16.7

200

 

 

 

 

 

 

o H.HH H H.3H H H.H3 HH H.3H H o Hoaoo. oz
H H.HH 3 H.HH H H.HH H H.H H H oboe no conga
o o H .H H H.HH 3 c o .8333
o o c H.3 H H.H H o HounHoon
H.HHH H H.3H H H.3H H HMHH 3 H.HH H o oHHz-oooHooH
. ma fin
o o H.HH H H.H3 H H.HH H o oz
o. H H o.ooH H HHHH HH HHHH H HHHH H o H.»
.... _ . . .Hmmmmmm
mmwo .oz Home .oz Home .oz Home .oz noon .oz Hooo .oz ‘1:
My a”-.. la? a“... .4... IT,

 

 

”an: gnu. g 20 as :0! no "0233th

Ho 52

201

(

 

HooooHHoooH

 

 

 

 

mundund HDOQQ nunflnaozfl 20 NMQZH (Ham: ho HOHMMM

No uandfi

o H.HH 3 H.3H H H.HH H 3.HH 3 o guano. oz
.H.HHH H HHHH H HHHH 3H H.HH 3H HHHH H o Hooooou
o HH3H H HH3 H o . o o aotz
. noel mam Wad
o‘ H.H3 H H.H3 HH H.HH ‘HH H.HH H o Hoaoo. oz
H.HHH H . HHHH 3 H.HH HH H.HH H H.HH H o Hoaooc
. . you new elm: g
HHHHH H 3.HH H H.HH HH H.HH H 3.H3 H o H.Houom
o mheH H npno OH opnn cH npn3 m o moon:
o HH3H H HH3 H HHH H HHH H o Hoooooo
Hooo .oz Hooo .oz Hooo .oz no.0 .oz Hose .oz Hooo .oz
them . hem Hem not hem . Hem

 

202

 

 

 

 

H H.HH H H.HH H H.HH H H.3H H H you... oz
o o H.H H o c c noon
H.HHH H H.3H H 3.HH 3 H H.HH H H oaa
. H H.HH 3 H.3H H H.HH HH H.HH H H .oo‘
_ 3o: E Ham
H H.H3 H H.HH 3H H.HH HH H.HH H H .2.... oz
H H.H3 H H.HH H H.HH H H.HH H H Hooya
H.HHH H H.3H H 3.HH 3 H.HH, H H.H H H Hoouuou
. . gm onz HIH :25
H H.HH H H.HH HH H.HH HH H.HH H H .oHH
H.HHH H H.H3 H H.HH HH H.HH H H.H H H noon
H H.3H H H H.H H H.HH H H H ooosn
H H.3H H H . H . H H one

I '

Houenon NmHz so:

 

mmwo .oz «:00 .02 Home .oz «:00 .02 Home .0: Home .oz - 3 II:

Hem . Hem . Hem . you new new
.ImeH oHuH H-H H-H 3-H H-H

 

 

mua<mun H=0n< manuflzozu 20 NMQZH (Han: ho HUNNNN

€253.38 HH H.HHH:

203

 

.n.¢~

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

H H H..3 H H.HH HH H.HH H H SHoHHo oz
H H.3H H H.H H H.HH H H.HH H H .55
H H.H3H H 3.HH 3 H.HH 3 H.H H H Hogans
H H.HH 3 H.HH H H.HH 3 H.HH 3 H 8qu
. .amEHflmdg :8
H H H.HH H H.HH H H.H H .H ooHoHoooz
H.HHH H H.H3 H 3.H3 HH H.HH ‘3H H.HH H H oz
. H H.HH 3 H.HH H H.HH H H.H H H ..H
, . . 2:: .533
H H H.HH H H.H H H.H H H .5383
H.HHH H H.HH H 3.H3 HH H.HH 3H H.HH H H oz
. H H.3H H 3.HH H H.HH H H.HH H H Wu..-
. - ; _MMMMIMMMM codenammu u//,
H H.HH H H.HH H H.HH 3 H 882.3.
H.HHH H H.HH H H.HH H H.HH H H.HH H . H oz
H H.HH 3 H.3H H H.HH H 3.H3 H H o.»
H. a ‘ ...l!..fl§.
Lapin}: .Heoo .oz 2.8 .oz .38 .oz Home .oz Hoou .oz 1
iMHWIIFI. .uem . . new . new _ ugh . Hum
1.H..H - 3.H H-H

  

ufiidmfi HDOGG.30H2HQO :0 NMEIH dHnfll h0 HDMMHW

no nandfi

204

.I‘

It}

It

 

AwonnHucoov

 

 

 

 

 

H.HH H H.H ooHoHoo oz
H.HH H.HH H 3.HH oz
H.HHH H.HHH H 3.HH H.HH H. HH3H H o.»
. . . HooHH ooHHoa
H H H.H3 H.HH H 3.3H H ooHoHoo oz
H H.3H H H.HH H.HH 3 H.H H HuoH
H H.3H H H.HH H.HH .H H.H H Hoooooz
H.HHH H 3.HH H H.HH H.H H 3.HH H ootz
3% H25
H H.3H H H.H3 H.HH H H.3H H ooHoHHo oz
H H.3H H H.HH H.HH .H H.HH H HHoH
H.HHH H H.H3 H H.HH H.HH H H.HH H Hooooou
H H.HH H H.HH H.HH H H ootz
. . . .HoHHz.mmw HooH
o O 3.5u n.n a N.w~ N uo3nam oz
H.HHH H H.HH H H.HH 3.33 H 3.H3 H HHoH
H H.3H H H.3 H.HH H H.HH H oooooH
H . H H.HH H H.HH H H.HH H H.HHH

Humnuo nouns
ween wok. Loco. .oz Homo .oz uooo .oz uooo .oz unou .oz
:mom H .uom ., Anon .. Hum . Hem . Ham
Ham .3um

 

 

   
 

 

H A

ufl<flfld 2H HmuuuHZH 20.xunzH «Ham! MO Bowman
#0 nfln<fi

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HHHHHH zH HHquazH zH.HHHzH HHHHz Ho HonzH

#0 uansa

H H H.HH H H.H H H.HH H Hoaoo. oz
H H 3.HH 3 H.H H H.HH H HoHHHHs ooz
H.HHH H H.HHH H H.HH 3H H.HH HH H.HH H HoHHHHz
. a 338 Mo olo 3
H H 3.HH 3 H H.H H Hoaoo. oz
H H.3H H H.HH H H.HH H H.HH H oz
H.HHH H H.HH H H.HH HH H.HH HH H.HH H ooz
. a a am :33.
H H H.HH H H.H H H.HH H Hoaoo. oz
H H.HH H H.HH H , H.HH H H.3H H oz
H.HHH H 3.HH H H.HH 3H H.33 H H.HH H .oz
. Mal-dug nonuodoow
H H H.HH H H H.H H ooHoHHo oz
H H.3H H H.HH H H.HH HH 3.H3 H oz
H.HHH H H.HH H H.HH 3H H.HH H A H.H3 H o.»
.. . . HooHH HooH.
mmwo .oz Homo .oz Hooo .oz Home .oz Hooo .oz Homo .oz 1::
Hon . Lem . .Hom . not . new : Hem
raHHH.;. .HHH.HH H-H . H.H 3-H H-H Ilzrlu

206

TABLE 65

EFFECT OF EDUCATION ON VIEWING FOURTH DEBATE

Qrade 8chooI High School College Total

For For Per Per
Number Cent Number Cent Number Cent Number Cent

Lem
Yes 9 90.0 28 82.4 32 91.4 69 87.3
No 1 10.0 6 17.6 3 8.6 10 12.7

mm
Husband-wife 4 40.0 13 38.2 12 35.3 29 36.7
Son-daughter 1 10.0 2 5.9 O 0 3 3.8
Outsider 0 0 1 2.9 4 11.8 5 6.3
Family 1 10.0 9 26.6 11 32.4 21 26.6

Belt 4 40.0 10 29.4 7 20.5 21 26.6

 

 

 

Answer

No answer

New York (c)
rwrong

No answer

Howe (c)
Incorrect

No answer

Knew
Not know

No answer

Nixon
Kennedy

Draw or no
answer

‘

9

UIU

207

TABLE 66

Subject
90.0 31 91.2

10.0 3 8.8
Originstion
72.7 28 82.4

0 3 8.8
27.3 3 8.8
Moderator
60.0 18 52.9

0 6 17.7

40.0 10 29.4
mm

40.0 21 63.6

30.0 7 21.2

30.0 5 15.2

Best ng_Pourth Debate

30.0 12 35.3
50.0 15 44.1

20.0 7 20.6

EFFECT OF EDUCATION ON KNOWLEDGE ABOUT DEBATE

 

 

24

12
12
11

24

14
15

68.6
17.1
14.3

34.3
34.3

'31.5

68.6

5.2

25.7

40.0
42.9

17.1

60

11

36
18
25

49
12
17

29
35

15

75.0
11.3
13.7

45.6
22.8
31.6

62.0
15.2
21.5

36.7
44.3

19.0

208

 

 

 

 

 

 

H.HH H H.HH H H.HH H H.HH H H.HH 3 H.HH 3 «H.H
H H H.H H H H.HH 3 H.HH H HooHoooH
H.HH H H.HH H H.HH 3 H.HH 3 H.H H H.HH H HHHaoz
c o H.HH m o o o nounwanv uo mom
H.HH H H.HH H H.H3 H H.H3 H H.HH HH H.HH H oHHanoo.Hooz
H.H: Hoooz
H.H H H.HH H H.HH H H.H H H.HH H H.HH H oz
HLHH HH H.HH H H.3H HH H.HH HH H.HH HH H.HH H o.»
. Hg
mwmn .ozw HooHV .oz Home .oz Hooo .oz Hooo .oz Hooo .oz
awn Lem Hum .uum . hem . Hem .
.IIMMMMIII IIMNMMIII nouns - osa - 0:0

 

 

 

UZHRMH> zo HNHm unHz<h MO HDNhhM

so MAQCH

209

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

no 303..

 

 

 

H.H H H.HH H H.HH H H H.HH H H.HH boson. on no 3.HH
H.HH H H.HH -H . H.H3 H H.HH H H.H3 H H.HH Hooooou
H.HH H H.33 3 H.HH 3 H.H3 H 3.H3 H H.HH ooqu
. H1938 HoH. my
H.H H H.33 3 H.HH H 3.H H H.HH 3 H.HH guano. oz
H.HH H H.HH H H.HH H H.H H H.HH H H.HH soon uoz
H.HH H H.HH H H.HH HH H.HH HH 3.HH HH H.HH anon
mcowuwvfiou
H.H3 H H.33 3 H.HH H H.H3 H H.HH H H.HH Hoaoo. oz
H.H H H.HH H H.HH H H.HH H H.HH H H.HH ,Hoooz
H.HH H H.HH H H.HH HH H.H3 H H.HH HH H.HH H.H ozoz
. . Loafing an: a .
3.H H H.HH H H.HH H H.H H H.HH H ocean. oz
H.H H H H.HH 3 H.HH H H H.HH . Hoooz
H.HH HH H.HH H H.HH HH H.HH H H.HH HH H.HH H.H «Ho» .oz
. . Hammmmmummm
H.H H H.HH H H.HH H H H.H H H.HH Hoeoo. oz
H.HH HH H.HH H H.3H HH H.HHH HH H.3H HH H.HH HoeooH
. . . Hula—dd
Homo .02 Home .02 Home .oz Homo .oz Home .oz Home JMH’
-JHMHH. «MMHH. HNMoH. HMMHHH ,- Hausa. “ammo
HHHHHH zaHHHH HHHHH HHHHHszz zH HHHH HHHsz Ho HHHHHH

Yes

No

Husband-wife
Son-daughter
Outsider
Family

Self

210

TABLE 69

EFFECT OF POLITICAL PREFERENCE ON VIEWING

 

 

 

Re ublicsn‘ Democrat Imdeeendent' 'Refoéed
-“-.-.E.is;tu.lf—HA.LJ‘J.‘A‘ _m—m'fi—J-l“f‘-n-‘ “
Per Per Fer Per

Number Cent Number Cent Number “CeggleumEgg Cent

a1...”-

Med.

23 95.9 20 90.9 17 33.9 8 88.9
1 4.1 2 9.1 6 26.1 1 11.1

Regtgtsé- £1,212

8 34.8 8 36.4 9 39.2 3 33.4

1 4.3 0 0 0 0 0 C

1 4.3 1 45.5 1 4.3 3 33.3

6 26.7 9 40.9 4 17.4 2 22.2

7 30.5 4 18.2 9 39.1 1 11.1

TABLE 70

EFFECT OF POLITICAL PREFERENCE ON KNOWLEDGE ABOUT DEBATE

              

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regblicsn ’ Democrat ”"155
Per Per Per Per
Number Cent Number Cent Number Cent Number Cent
Subject I
Answer 23 95.8 20 90.1 19 82.6 5 100.0
No answer 1 4.2 p 2 9.9 4 17.4 0 O
23253.0riginate
New York (c) 18 75.0 16 72.8 17 73.9 9 90.0
Wrong 4 16.7 3 13.6 1 4.4 1 10.0
No answer 2 8.3 3 13.6 5 21.7 0 0
Who was Moderator
Howe (c) 14 58.4 8 36.4 9 39.1 5 50.0
Wrong 5 20.8 7 31.8 3 13.0 3 30.0
No answer 5 20.8 7 31.8 11 47.9 2 20.0
Conditions
Knew 17 70.8 15 68.2 13 56.5 4 44.4
Not know 4 16.7 4 18.2 2 8.7 2 22.2
no answer 3 12.5 3 13.6 8 34.8 3 33.4
2.2.2. .322 £22521;
Nixon 14 58.4 2 9.1 9 39.1 4 40.0
Kennedy 5 20.8 18 81.8 a 34.8 a 40.0

Draw or no
answer 5 20.8 2 9.1 6 26.1 2 20.0

__.—

212

 

 

 

o.nN H H.H3 H o.oH 3 H.HH m o.om c.0m H. uHom
H.HH H H.HH 3 H.HH H H.HH H. H.HH H HHHeom
o.m~ H o o.~H m H.3 H o.on H HmvHHHso
o o o n.3H m o hounwnmv no now
o.n~ H H.HH o c.33 HH H.HH o 0.03 o ewusumoenesfl
«9% 253.:
o H.HH n o.3 H o.mH 3 o.oH o.oH H oz
H.HHH 3 3HHH 3H H.HH 3H H.HH HH H.HH H.HH H o.»
. . .mmmmmmw .
Home .oz Homo .oz uaou .oz Homo .oz anon anon .oz .11
gunk .- non . Hum . new . _ Hem you .
. +HH 0H: m cum 3-H H-H
nflflflnflHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH AIIIIllllllllllllllllllllllllll

 

 

 

UZHSMH> 20 NmnzH ¢H0uz m0 Houhhm

HH H.HHHH.

213

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H H.HH H H.HH H H.HH H H.HH H H .Hooooo oo oo 3.HH
H.HH H H.H3 H H.H3 HH H.H3 HH H.HH H H Hooooou
H.HH H H.HH H H.H3 HH H.HH H H.HH H H.HHH H ootz
. mummy: nuuaom.mm.mmm uHmm
H H.HH 3 H.HH H H.HH H H.HH H H Hoaooo oz
H.HH H H.H H H.H H H.HH H H.HH H H soon ooz
H.HH H H.HH HH H.3H HH H.H3 HH H.HH H H.HHH H sooz
. m:0Hqucoo
H H.H3 H H.HH 3 H.HH H H.HH H H.HH H Haemoo oz
H.HH H H.HH 3 H.HH H H.3H H H.HH H H ooooooooH
H.HH H H.HH H H.HH 3H H.H3 HH H.HH H H.HH H H.H oaoz
. . Houmummoz
H H.HH 3 H.H H H.3H H H.HH H H Hos... oz
H H.HH H H.3 H H.HH 3 H.HH H H Hoooz
H.HHH 3 H.HH HH H.HH HH H.HH 3H H.HH H H.HHH H Hov HooH 3oz
. . . _mHHmHmHHHmm
o o.nH n 0.3 H n.3H m o o uo3Hcm oz
H.HHH 3 3.HH HH H.HH 3H H.HH HH H.HHH HH H.HHH H .oamoH
. . . . .mmmqmmm .
9:60 .oz uouo .oz Homo .oz Homo .oz Homo .oz Homo .62
Mom . hum . Hum H0..— HOA .H mm
+HH HH-H H-H H.H 3-H H-H It»

 

 

”stand abond munflflnozu 20 NflnzH <Hnm= m0 BUMhhm
Nh mnmdfi

214

TABLE 73

DEBATES WATCHED

 

 

       

 

 

 

 

 

muGPEde School High Scfiool-V” “Czllege_ 1'5‘1nggimz'1'

Per Per Per Per
Number Cent Number Cent Number Cent Numbegngeng

gz’Educstion

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One 0 O l 3.1 1 2.8 O 0
Two 2 20.0 3 9.4 3 8.6 0 0
Three 1 10.0 11 34.4 10 28.6 0 0
All 6 60.0 17 53.1 21 60.0 o 9
None' 1 10.0 0 ’ 0 O 0 O 0
One Two Three
Per For Pet
__¥ Number Cent Number Cent NUmber Cent
gz‘Familx §£gg,
One 0 O 0 O 0 0
Two 1 12.5 10.5 2 16.7
Three 2 25.0 26.3 3 25.0
Pour (all) 5 62.5 12 63.2 7 58.3
None 0 0 O 0 0 0
Pour ___ ____1§§gL____ Six +
For For Per
__1 __ Number Cent Number Cent Number Cong.
amaze... (W)
One 1 5.3 1 11.1 0 0
Two 0 0 2 22.2 1 8.3
Three 8 42.1 1 11.1 3 25.0
Four (all) 10 52.6 4 44.5 8 6A.?
None 0 0 1 11.1 0 0

_.¥

 

 

215

TABLE 73 (Continued)

DEBATES WATCHED

Per Per Per

Number Cent Number Cent Number Cent

Bz’Politicsl Preference

‘—

Repuincan Democrat gndependent

' AA. H~=‘A,,-‘-l. nuxm—el.’
Rerusea

fer

Nemberh_§§nt

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

None

 

One 0 O O O 2 7.7 0 0
Two 3 12.5 1 4.6 4 15.4 0 0
Three 8 33.3 5 22.7 8 30.8 1 16.7
Four (all) 13 54.2 16 72.7 11 42.2 5 83.3
None 0 o o o 1 3.8 o o

1-2 3H4 5&6

Per Per Per

Number Cent Number Cent Number Ceg§_
:51. 3212. 2mm

One 1 100.0 1 O 0 0
Two 0 0 2 20.0 2 9.5
Three 0 0 1 10.0 7 33.3
111 o o 2' 70.0 1.1 . 52.1.
None 0 0 0 O 1 4.8

7~8 9°10 11 +_A

Per Per Per
_mo Number Cent Number Cent Num§g3_hpgng

B1 mdia _Index (Continued)

One 0 O l 5.9 0 0
Two ‘ 2 8.0 2 11.3 1 16.6
Three 6 24.0 7 41.2 1 16.7
A11 17 68.0 7 41.1 4 66.7
0 0 0 0 0 0

 

f; 216

TABLE 74

EFFECT OF EDUCATION ON OPINION OF ALL DEBATES

 

 

 

Grade School High School College
Per Per Per
Number Cent Number Cent Number Cent

 

Changed Mind

Yes 2 20.0 8 23.5 7 20.0
No 8 80.0 23 67.7 27 77.1
No answer 0 3 8.8 1 2.9

 

 

 

Nixon 5 45.5 13 38.2 14 40.0
Kennedy 5 45.5 17 50.0 19 54.3
No answer 1 9.0 4 11.8 2 5.7
Either §g£.Agg§1
Nixon 2 120.0 9 26.5 7 20.0
Kennedy 0 5 14.7 2 5.7
Both 2 20.0 9 26.5 12 34.3
No answer 6 60.0 9 26.5 14 40.0
Candidates a_t_ Egg;
Nixon 3 30.0 13 38.2 8 22.9
Kennedy 6 60.0 16 47.1 19 54.2
No opinion 1 10.0 5 14.7 8 22.9

(Continued)

%

217

TABLE 74 (Continued)

EFFECT OF EDUCATION ON OPINION OF ALL DEBATES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grade School gigh‘gggggl_i “C011ege
Per Per Per
Number Cent Number Cent Number Cent
Debates Valuable
Yes 7 70.0 26 76.5 30 85.7
No 1 10.0 6 17.7 4 11.4
No opinion 2 20.0 2 5.8 1 2.9
Meet liomation 59.2.1.2 22.112321
Debates 5 50.0 19 55.9 24 72.7
Reading 2 20.0 12 35.3 4 12.1
Talking 2 20.0 3 8.8 4 12.1
No answer 1 10.0 0 1 3.1
Have Effect 22.235i2g_

Lot 3 30.0 8 24.2 7 21.9
Some 2 20.0 16 48.5 19 59.4
Little 4 40.0 8 24.2 5 15.6
None 1 10.0 1 3.1 l 3.1
Yes 0 7 20.6 11 31.4
No 9 90.0 26 76.5 24 68.6
No answer 1 10.0 1 2.9 O

218

 

AnuscHucoov

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H.HH H H.HH H H.HH H H.H H H.HH H H ooHoHoo oz
H.HH H H.33 3 3.H3 H H.HH H H.HH HH H.HH H Hooooou
H.HH H H.HH H H.HH 3 H.H3 H H.HH H H.HH H ootz
omom .ulm HoumoHoamo
H.HH H H.HH H HH H H H.HH H Hoaoo. oz
H.HH H 3.33 3 H 3 H H.HH H HooH
H.HH H H H H H H.HH H Hoooooz
H.HH 3 H.HH H H H H H.HH H ootz
.Hmmmw.mmm H.HHHH
H.HH H H.HH H H.HH H H.H H H.HH H H ooHoHHo oz
H.HH H H.33 3 3.H3 H H.HH H H.HH HH H.HH H Heooooz
H.HH H H.HH H H.HH 3 H.H3 H H.HH H H.HH H ootz
. . . HoH HH<-oomm HooH .
H.H H H H.HH H H ‘ H H.HH H Hosea. oz
H.HH H H.HH H H.HH 3H H.HH H 3.HH HH H.HH H oz
H.HH H H.HH H H.HH H H.HH 3 H.HH H H.HH H o.»
oon 33% .
uHHmU .02 uHHoU .02 uflmo .02 ucmo .02 0000 .02 0000 .02 1
Hum . mom . new . .Hom new mom
me o>HHH .HHHoHH 0959 can. one
annual-nunwrm . ‘1 .5

 

.mh ”SSH.

 

mufi<mmn AA< m0 onszo 20 MNHm MHHHHSHH ho Homhmm

219

 

HooooHooooH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H HoHH H H H H H Hoamoo oz

H.HH H HoHH H HOHH 3H HOHH H H.HH HH H.HH H oz

H.HH H .H H.HH H H.HH 3 H.HH 3 HOHH H Ho»
j goon:

H H.HH H H H H.HH H HOHH H oooz

HOHH H H H.HH H H.HH H HGHH H HOHH 3 oHuoHH

HOHH H HOHH H H.HH HH H.HH, H H.H3 H HoHH H oaoH

HoHH H HoHH H H.HH H H.HH 3 H.HH H HOHH H HoH <
and flow:

H H.HH H H H H.H H H Hoaooo oz

H.HH H H.HH H H HoHH H H.HH H HOHH H HooHo HonHoH

H.HH H H.HH H H.HH H H.HH H H.HH 3 HOHH H HooHH HoHHooz

H.HHH H H.33 3 3.HH HH H.HH H H.HH HH H.HH H ooooHoH

. . .mmmmmmm unon< nouunlhomaH.mmmx .

H.H H H.HH H H.HH H H.H H H.HH HH H ooHoHHo oz

H.HH H HHHH H H.H H H H.HH H H.HH H oz

H.HH H H.HH H H.3H HH H.HH HH H.HH H H.HH H ooz
. . o~aw=~n> nouunun

230 .02 uflOO .02 nun—00 no. 8600 .0! U600 .02 ucmo .02 ll

:hoh . Huh . HOQ . Hflh Huh Hum
New u>uh Mach awash 039 one

 

 

HESS H.HH Ho .8253 no HHHH SEE Ho .HHHHHH
HouaoHuaouv HH HHHHH

n.

n].

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mood N HoHH H 0 wood N o o hm3mcu oz

HOHH H HoHH H HoHH 3 H HOHH H HOHH H oz

mowm m mooo o moms ma momm OH momw 5H mowo m m0»
.mmwmmamo uxuz.mm upmm.m.lm mmuwnmm vanonm

o HoHH H mom H mow H o o umBmcu oz

30m H NONN N mama m o.n~ m momH m 0 oz

oHHm HH Home c moan mu H.HH w ~.¢m 0H ooooH w mmw
. oooHoH nuHs HHHHHHHHH

usuu .oz acme .oz ucwu .oz ucmo 002 Have .oz ucwo .oz

Hum pom Hum yum yum yum

me m>Hm Hack «Hana 03H mac

illl.ll'll'

mmfi<mmn AA< mo ZOHZHmo zo uNHm MHH2<M ho Hommmm

HooaaHHcouH HH HHHHH

II: 'Al'll'lllYl.

221

TABLE 76

EFFECT OF POLITICAL PREFERENCE ON OPINION ABOUT DEBATES

 
  

   
  

 

,,.._V ,..H -

 

 

 

”‘

 

 

 

 

“‘ 3.2.1.1... Deocat ” '___.’“"'“““’.._ Hag.“
Per_ Per Per Per
___ _Nyghgr Cent Number Cent Num§33_ugent Numbe§_ €ent
Changed fling.
You 5 20.8 6 27.3 3 13.0 3 30.0
No 18 75.0 14 63.7 19 82.6 70.0
No answer' 1 4.2 2 9.0 1 4.4 O 0
m. 2.4.4. .2225 mag-9.1.1. m
Nixon 16 66.7 2 9.1 11 47.9 33.0
Konnody 7 29.3 19 86.4 9 39.1 60.0
No mom: 1 4.2 1 4.5 3 13.0 23.0
Either gag.§g£'§gggx
Nixon 7 29.2 8 36.4 8.7 1 19.3
Konnody 3 12.5 3 13.6 8.7 1 19.0
Both 8 33.3 7 31.8 26.1 2 20.0
No anon: 6 25.0 1. 18.2 13 56.5 6 60.0
Qandidates 55 gig;
Nixon 10 41.7 1 4.8 9 39.1 50.0
Kbnnody 11 45.8 17 80.9 9 39.1 4 4%.“
No opinion 3 12.5 3 14.3 5 21.8 23.3
Debates gglggggg
Yes 19 79.2 19 86.4 16 69.6 93.0
No 4 16.7 3 13.6 4 17.4 0 a
No opinion 1 4.1 O 0 3 13.0 1 10.9

 

 

(Continued)

 

222

TABLE 76 (Continued)

EFFECT OF POLITICAL PREFERENCE 0N OPINION ABOUT DEBATES

      

 

 

3'31

 

 

 

Ragublican I AmDenocrot hm;§§§é§é§é§:;";;;§g£gigimu
For For Per Ker
.. tiger gent Number Cent Number Cent: N'oflye_gj__§em
my; gnformgggg
Dabatea 14 58.3 16 76.2 11 53.0 7 70.0
loading 33. 3 2 9. 5 2'7. 3 2 20. 0
Talking 2 8.4 3 14.3 13.6 1 10.0
No anawar . 0 0 O 0 2 9.1 0 0
Effect 35 gm
A lot 5 20.8 6 27.3 4 17.4 3 30.0
Sona . 10 41. 7 12 54.5 11 47. 8 4 40.0
Little 29.7 2 9.1 21.7 3 30.0
None 2 8.3 2 9.1 13.1 0 0
Affect 3923.335;
Yaa 4 16.7 5 22.7 5 21.7 4 40.0
No 20 83.3 17 77.3 16 69.6 6 60.0
No answer 0 O 0 0 2 8. 7 0 O
gagisfied With Egggggg'
Yes 19 79.2 20 90.1 m 73.9 a 80.0
No 4 16.7 2 9.9 4 1?.4 2 20.0
No anauer 1 14.1 0 0 2 8.7 0
m m... 112, 32.2.2 2; 19.55. mm
Yes 17 70.8 18 81.8 17 73.9 8 80.0
No 5 20.8 3 13.6 4 17.4 20.0
No answer 2 8.3 1 4.6 2 8. 7 0 0

 

 

-_

avoncuucoov

223

 

H.HH H H.HH H H.HH H 3.HH H H.HH 3 H.HHH H Hosooo oz
H.HH H H.HH H H.HH H H.HH 3 HH3H H H HooH
H.HH H H.H H H.H H H.HH 3 H.3H H H Hoooooz
H.HH H H.HH 3 H.3H H H.HH H H.3H H H . ootz
Nance olod .23on

H H.HH H H.3 H H.3H H H H.HH H Hoaooo oz

H.HH H.HH HH H.HH HH H.H3 HH H.HH Hooooou
H.HH H.HH 3 H.3H H H.HH H H.3H ootz

. Hon 44¢-Hooo H.HH

m.m u 0.3 u mo¢ N Hoanno oz

H.HH H.HH HH H.HH HH H.HH HH H.HH oz
H.HH H.HH 3 H.3H H H.HH 3 H.HH o.»

oon H.HHHHH

MMoo .oz uaoo .oz uaoo .oz uooo .02 Home .oz uaoo .oz 1!!
Hum . Hum . not . Hum you Hum
1 can

 

 

 

 

 

magma d< MO IOU—5&0 zo Nana 553a no “human

uh SQSH

224

 

HooaaHuoouM:
0 a6 H o °.n H

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o o Hoamno .oz
H.HH H H.H H H.3 H H.HH H. H H.HH H HoHHHoH
= H H.HH 3 H.HH H H.HH 3 H. H HoHHooz
H.HH H H.3H HH H.HH HH H.HH HH H H.HH H ooooHoH
. ocuugomnn one:
H H.H H H.3 H H.3 H H H ooHaHHo oz
HH.HH H H.HH 3 H H.3H H H H.HH H oz
H.HH H. H.HH. HH H.HH. 3H H.HH HH H H.HH H o.»
oHHmoHH> ooHoHHm
H H.HH H H.HH H H.3H H H.HH H H.HH H ooHoHoo oz
H.HHH 3 HHHH HH H.HH 3H H.H3 HH H.HH H a H HooHoou
. H H.HH H H.HH H H.HH H H.HH H H.HH H ootz
. . anon fl noun—3.2350
Hoop. .oz Hooo .oz noon .oz mammuuummnunummmu .oz ImmoH .oz :1.
zuom . Iluum . Hum . Mom . you . you
gram“ .; . ,HH-H H-H H.H 3-H . H-H

 

magma dd .3 IOHIHNO 20 was an! MO Baku

HouaaHuooHH HH HHHHH

225

 

o Q.- N o.¢ n w.¢ a Good a o uoauau oz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H H.HH 3 H.H H H.HH H H.HH H H.HH H oz
H.HHH 3 H.3H HH H.HH HH 3.HH HH H.HH H H.HH H no»
.mummmmmm.mmmm.mm HuoH.mm H.HoHoH oHaoHH.

o . o O m.e u oocu N o Hozuou oz
H.HH H H.HH H HHHH 3 H.3H H H H.HH H oz
H.HH H 3.HH 3H H.3H HH H.HH HH H.HH H H.HH H o.»
. ooHoHoH HHHa ooHHoHHHH
H H H H.H H H.HH H H.HH H Hoaooo oz
H.HH H H.3H HH H.HH HH H.HH HH H.HH H H.HH H oz
H.HH H H.HH H H.HH H H.HH 3 H H Ho»
. . . ouo>_MNMN uoouw<
H.HH H H.H H H.3. H H.3 H H.HH H H.HH H oooz
H H.HH H H.HH 3 H.HH H H.HH H H oHoHHH
H.HH H H.HH HH H.HH HH H.HH H H.H3 3 H oaoH
H.HH H H.HH H H.HH H H.H3 HH H H.HH H HoH H

 

. umHuo>_mu uoouuu

H.H—00 .oz uoou .oz 250 . .0! 0:00 .oz H.H—00 .oz 250 .oz
non J Huh . .uom ‘ hon you Mom
ILW-.. -oulo - was cum «in ~u~

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

fisfiaéfiggfigfigiagg
- €356.38 HH H.33.

226

TABLE 38

'zrrzcr or EDUCATION ON VIENING FIRST 5.53:3

 

.. . H.H H dug-(1% ~~~~ ff: ..H.;.‘a';1“"'“ u- n—tvtzzuhHa-H—w—mvnwi‘

mm“ Schoel. 115......1: Sea-go}... Hugs-sew -_.._.'.'<.>yl_ .
Per Per Fer Per

Number Cent Number Cent _HEWVRE_.SETC Ngggg£m_Ceng

All of it 17 47.2 25 54.3 42 73.7 84 63.4
Part of it 12 33.3 12 26.1 10 17.5 34 24.5
None of it 7 19.5 9 19.6 5 8.8 21 15.0

 

Husband-wife 11 30.6 13 28.3 19 36.5 A! 31.6
Sonudaughter 1 2.8 4 8.7 2 3.9 7 3.1
Outaider 3 8.3 3 6.5 14 26.9 21 15.4
Family 3 8.3 7 15.2 6 11.6 16 11.9
Self 18 50.0 19 41.3 12 23.1 49 36.0

-—-—-—- — an. a..-.A.I:g ”on-II... .9 ‘-|I-“‘M~-O. uh mm— ho."~.§il.~-'- “ran-5n ”4E“...

227

TABLE 79

EFFECT OF EDUCATION ON MEDIA ACTIVETY

  

 

 

Per Per Per
Number Cent Number Cent Number Cent

Radio Ownershig

One eet 29 80.5 28 63.6 22 42.3 79
Tho or more aeta 7 19.5 16 36.4 27 51.9 50
No eeta 0 0 0 0 3 5.8 3
Television Ownershig
One aet 33 97.1 38 90.5 39 79.6 110
Two or more aeta 1 2.9 4 9.5 10 20.4 15
None 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nevegeger Subscrigtion
Courier 25 71.4 27 62.8 13 25.5 65
Herald 1 2.9 1 2.3 0 0 2
Chicago or
lbtropoliten 1 2. 9 1 2. 3 o o 2
None 4 11.4 3 6.8 5 9.8 12
Courier and
ktropoliten 4 11.4 11 25.6 33 64. 7 48

News Mgezines

Newsweek, Time,
Q.§. News 6:

world Regort 4 11.8 8 19.5 15 29.4 27
Other 5 14.7 7 17.1 7 13.7 19
None 25 73.5 24 58.5 18 35.3 67

Two or more 0 0 2 4.9 11 21.6 13

g

rade School Hi hschoolm -——§21l23g4; 1:::Tet§1 3--
Per
Number Cent

59.9
37.8
2.3

88.0
12.0
0

50.4
1.6

1.6
9.2

37.2

21.4

‘1:

53.2
10.3

       

228

TABLE 80

EFFECT OF EDUCATION ON KNOWLEDGE ABOUT DEBATES

A, __-_ . H“ u..-

 

 

 

 

 

Grade School Colelge '
Per Per Per
Number Coat Number Cost Number Cost
Subject
Answer 6 22.2 16 40.0 31 81.6
No answer 21 77.8 24 60.0 7 18.4
Readin§.About
Yes 9 30.0 11 30.6 24 48.0
No 21 70.0 25 69.4 26 52.0
Read about Yesterday
Yes 6 31.6 2 12.5 12 48.0
No: 13 68.4 14 87.5 13 52.0
11m 5.22112;
Kennedy 24 66.7 29 63.0 41 77.4
Nixon 0 2 4.3 2 3.8
Don't know 12 33.3 15 32.7 10 18.8
Introduction
Smith (c) 81.8 13 86.7 26 96.3
Don't know 18.2 2 13.3 1 3.7
Originated
Chicago (c) 18 . 90.0 20 69.0 35 97.2
not know 2 1000 9 3100 l 2.08
_Points Made
Answer 14 58.3. 21 56.8 36 81.9
No answer 10 41.7 16 43.2 8 18.1

 

229

TABLE 81

EFFECT OF EDUCATION ON OPINION ABOUT DEBATES

 

 

“
Grade School High School College
Per Per Per
__A Number Cent Number Cent Number Cent

 

 

Egg Di Best Job

9

 

Kennedy 7 19.4 19.6 19 35.8
Nixon 10 27.8 11 23.9 7 13.3
Draw 0 2 4.3 0

No opinion 19 52.8 24 52.2 27 50.9

LL19; Anything
Answer 7 33.3 7 24.2 13 39.4
No answer 14 66.7 22 75.8 20 60.6
11122.19. 1.2 2.12211 2910;;

Yes 26 74.3 34 82.9 47 92.2
No 0 1 2.4 1 2.0
Not aura 9 25.7 6 14.6 3 5.8

Idea 2; Being on All Stations

Good 33 91.7 33 94.3 47 95.9

Bad 1 2.8 1 2.9 2 4.1

Don't know 2 6.5 l 2.8 O
Ehg£,Programs Eggg'Pre~Egpted

Answer 5 15.6 11 29.7 9 30.6

No answer 27 84.4 26 70.3 25 69.4

 

230

TABLE 82 '

EFFECT OF EDUCATION ON LINCOLNnDOUGLAS DEBATE KNOWLEDGE

rade School High School College

 

 

 

Per Per Per

__1 Number Cent Number Cent Number Cent
Bel—d 88:...

Yes 20 62.5 30 81.1 47 88.7

No 5 15.6 1 2.7 3 5.6

Don't know 7 21.9 6 16.2 3 5.7
TABLE 83

EFFECT OF EDUCATION ON POLITICAL PREFERENCE

grad: School High Schogg_ College ‘

 

 

 

Per Per Per
__1 Number Cent Number Cent Number Cent
intent inIVoting
Nixon 12 36.4 15 35.7 16 33.3
Kennedy 8 24.2 10 23.8 7 14.6
undecided 6 18.2 11 26.2 17 35.4
Refused 7 21.2 6 14.3 8 16.7
TABLE 84

EFFECT OF EDUCATION ON EVALUATION OF VOTING EFFECT

 

     

 

 

 

Grade School “.Eigh Sghoolrmm College
Per Per Per
Number Cent Number Cent ; Number Cent
Have Effect
Yes 19 57.6 26 63.4 34 66.7
No 2 6.1 6 14.6 8 15.6

No opinion 12 36.3 9 22.0 9 17.7

231

TABLE 85

EFFECT OF POLITICAL PREFERENCE ON DEBATE VIEWING {FIRST DEBATE?

 

‘ _ —— res-war

 

 

 

Regublican Democrat _ ngggiggin ;::§S§3§g3"“'
Per Per Per Per

Number Cent Number Cent Numberw_§ent__fipmbeg‘ Cent

921.21.19.51

All 27 56.3 20 76.9 22 62.9 12 54.5
Part 13 27.1 4 15.4 8 22.9 6 27.3
None 8 16.7 2 7.7 5 14.3 4 18.2

Husband-wife 15 48.4 9 56.3 11 47.8 5 50.0
Son-daughter 1 3.2 3 18.8 2 8.8 1 10.0
Outsider 10 32.3 2 12.5 5 21.7 2 20.0

Family 5 16.1 2 12.5 5 21.7 2 20.0

232

TABLE 86

EFFECT OF POLITICAL PREFERENCE ON MEDIA ACTIVITY

 

 

Republican Democrat Undecided_ Refusedp:
Per Per Per Per

 

Number Cent Number Cent Number Cent Number Cent
Radio Ownership

 

One set 23 51.1 17 65.4 20 58.8 15 68.2

Two or more sets 21 46.7 8 30.8 14 41.2 7 31.8

None 1 2.2 1 3.9 0 0
Television Ownership

One set 37 90.2 23 92.0 25 78.1 20 95.2

Two or more 4 9.8 2 8.0 7 21.9 1 4.8

None 0 0 0 0
Newspaper Subscription

Courier 19 44.2 11 42.3 16 48.5 12 57.1

Herald (Dec.) 0 1 3.8 l 3.0 0

Chicago or

Ebtropolitsn 2 4.7 0 — O 2 9.5
None 7 16.3 2 7.7 3 9.1 0

Combination of

Courier and
htropolitan 15 34.9 12 46.2 13 39.4 7 33.4

News Magazines

Time, Newsweek,
11. §_. News .a_I_1_d_
world Report 11 28.2 7 30.4 7 22.6 0

Other 7 18.0 3 13.1 6 19.4 3 18.8

None 21 53.8 13 56.5 18 58.1 13 81.3

 

EFFECT OF POLITICAL PREFERENCE ON KNOWLEDGE ABOUT DEBATES

233

TABLE 87

Republican Democrat
Per Per

 

Answer

No answer

Yes

Yes

No

Kennedy

Nixon

'Correct

Did not know

Chicago (c)

Did not know

Answer

No answer

18
18

11

28

15

35

18

27

21

11

160.0 20

Independent

Per

 

50.0 12 57.1 12
50.0 9 42.9 15
Reading épppp,0ebates

28.2 11 44.0 10
71.8 14 56.0 19
M £22; Yesterdaz

21.1 4 33.3 10
78.9 8 66.7 10
.W_l'1_9_ 1'1”. app; Speaker

100.0 21

0 3

flpp_1ntroduced Speakers

94.7 9 75.0 14

5.3 3 25.0 1

32.9.52. _Ld _ip Originate

84.4 14 93.3 19

15.6 1 6.7 4
Remember Epippp

65.6 17 73.9 21

34.4 6 26.1 8

44.4
55.6

34.5
65.5

50.0
50.0

87.5

12.5

93.3

6.7

82.6

17.4

72.4

27.6

10

10

15

10

Refused

Per

Number Cpnp Number Cent Number Cent Number Cent
Subject pg_First Debate

41.2
58.9

44.4

55.6

40.0
60.0

93.8
6.3

100.0

83.3

16.7

40.0

60.0

234

TABLE 88
EFFECT OF POLITICAL PREFERENCE ON OPINION ABOUT DEBATES

appublican Democrat Independent Refused

Per Per Per Per

__. Number gent Number Cent Number Cent Number Cent

229. am __.... £21.».

 

Kennedy 2 8.7 17 89.5 12 80.0 3 50.0
Nixon 20 87.0 1 5.3 3 20.0 3 50.0
Draw 1 4.3 1 5.3 0 0

wag-.119;

Answer 9 31.0 7 38.9 11 47.8 0
No answer 20 69.0 11 61.1 12 52.2 4 100.0
mamm

Yes 37 88.1 22 88.0 30 88.2 12 60.0

No 1 2.4 0 1 3.0 0

Don't know 4 9.5 3 12.0 3 8.8 8 40.0
Eggfiflggflmetions

Good idea 38 84.4 25 96.2 30 90.9 17 77.3

Bad idea 2 4.5 0 0 2 9.1

No opinion 5 11.1 1 3.8 3 9.1 3 13.6
MMMW

Answer 14 36.8 2 10.5 7 29.2 2 33.3

No answer 24 63.2 17 89.5 17 70.8 4 66.7

 

235

TABLE 89

EFFECT OF POLITICAL PREFERENCE ON LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE KNOWLEDGE

Republican Democrat Independent Refused

 

 

 

 

Per Per Per Per
Number Cent Number Cent Number Cent Number Cent
‘ Held Here
Yes 34 79.1 20 87.0 23 71.9 13 76.5
No 4 9.3 0 4 12.5 1 5.9
Don't know 5 11.6 3 13.0 5 15.6 3 17.6
TABLE 90

EFFECT OF POLITICAL PREFERENCE ON EVALUATION OF VOTING EFFICIENCY

 

Effect pp Votipg

 

Yes 27 67.5 19 73.1 22 68.8 6 28.6

No 3 7.5 4 15.4 3 9.4 7 33.3

No opinion 10 25.0 3' 11.5 7 21.9 8 38.1
TABLE 91

EFFECT OF POLITICAL PREFERENCE ON EDUCATION (VOTING PREFERENCE)

 

Republican Democrat Independent Refused
Per Per Per Per

.EEEQQE, Cent Number Cent Number Cent Number Cent
Grade school 13 31.0 10 37.0 7 19.5 6 30.0
High school 14 33.3 10 . 37.0 12 33.3 6 30.0
College 15 35.7 7 26.0 17 47.2 8 40.0

‘

236

 

o ~.n~ n e.e~ o” o.n« - o.nc «H «Ho. an

o

o o ~.- n ~.- .n m.» n H.a ~ mHgawm
o o m._m h ~.- m ~.~H a e.e a u.o«.u=o
o o o 0.5 n m.m n o Hounmnmvaaom
o o.oo~ H m.~n A m.ne a“ ~.o~ ed ~.- A om3:-ua.a.:u

 

flaws voaow>

 

 

 

 

o o «.8. ~ m.¢ , N o.nH a m.~q HE «no:
a c n.- .n ~.~H s n.mn o~ «.NE e upon
a c.co~ E ~.a~ «H . o.m~ mm s.~m an o.¢m o H~<
.ummmmmmm
uaoo .oz _ueoo .oz uaoo .oz. «sou .oz uaou .oz uaou .oz 1:.
non . not . .uom . hem nah you
-+- o~-a m-~ o-n e-n. ~-~

   

nacnnn haunt GZHBMHD 20 nunzH NHH>HHO< «Hau2.m6 Bowman
~o MHQ<H

237

l I.

 

 

noosogoooov

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o o o.n E n.~ H a.e ~ o conga
c o.oc~ a o.na «a n.na an ~.na an o.oo~ o~ wooooox
Hog 3qu a a:
o o o.oo e _.an mg a.o~ cm o.om o oz
o o o.oo o «.3 a 13 o o.o~ H 3»
hmvuoumow anon—m wood
0 o o.~e ca a.no m~ o.ao on 5.08 m oz
8 o.co~ a o.~n fig ~.¢n m~ 8.8m mg m.nm o oo»
. flood—10m 3.2... a
o o o.n g ~.ne o~ h.~o a~ o.on cg uoaooo oz
o o «:3 2 «.3. 2 «on .2 12.. m 9.33 noose
. ouoowa nouum.mm.wwmqmmm
noon .oz uaoo .oz noon .oz uoou .oz uaou .oz nooo .oz .1:
Mom . Mom . Huh . Mom . huh . Mom
In»: 87¢ a; . Pa .1” N; H

 

 

no Manda

Egg .3 g 80 EH04 (Ha! MO Human

238

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o o m.H~ n o.o~ N o.Hm NH H.oo oH ooa.oo oz
o o.ooH H ~.- mH o.om ma ~.~o m~ m.nm m ooamo<
vouonaoaum muawom was:
o o w.HH ~ n.o . ~ ~.mH o «.oH H .ooox ooz
o H ~.mo AH . n.mo o~ m.Hm oN e.nw o Hoe owoowno
any fl leo 825
o c o .m.m~ ,n o.o~ m 0 30a:
, . uoa mam no woo»:
o H o.ooH oH ~.ow oH o.oo mH o.ooH ~ HooHaav oooooou
. . .UOBVOHUQH 0g .
.waeo .oz uaoo .oz uaoo .oz uaou .oz ammo .oz uaou .oz 111
-mwm ., Anon . Mom . uwfi . Hum . you .
I4: 2-... . a; . o..n o._n.._i l-.~_i..H..l.

 

 

 

mnH¢nun MO MUONHIOBI 20 MHH>HHU< <Hamz ho Homhhu

AooaoHuooUV no uaa<a

239

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o o c.on h H.~m n~ «.oh oo m.nm nH nooooo oz
o H o.oa n o.~H m H.m~ ~H ~.o H ooooo<
. .mmmummummm.mmmmummm goo: .
o o o a h.n m o ooHaHoo oz
o o o a.~ H m.n ~ m.m H oooH oom
o o.ooH H o.ooH H~ ~.~o mm o.oo mo H.Ho HH oooH oooo
. . 302 4.3 mm anon—m no.5
o o H.o ~ w.cH o ~.HH oH “.oH N oooo ooz
o o o ~.~ H o n.m H oz
a o.ooH H o.oo ea “.oa ~m a.~m no o.nh o .o»
“HUSH-O Juan: 0“ fiH—OUQH
o o.ooH H “.oo o n.on oH o.~o m~ m.mo mH oosooo oz
8 . o n.nm o 5.84 HH o.~m. HH ~.o H cosmoc
ooxHHoHn_mm ooxHa
o o o o.n ‘ H o.m . H o ooHoHoo oo oo soon
a o m.nn H o.n H o.Hn «H o.on H ootz
o o.ooH H «.oo o o.an oH o.on nH o.on H mooooou
H douHm non noon .
umoo .oz uaou .02 £25 .oz uuou .oz uawu .oz £50 .02
H0“ . Hflfi . HUQ . Hflh HOE Hum
.+HH;. -oH-a a-H o.n ¢-m ~-H

 

 

«a Wanda

magma g EHEQO BO :2 «HA—Ha ho Rumba .

240

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o o m.o H o.m H o.HH n o.o~ N oz
o o.ooH H ~.no o~ o.~o «m o.mm mm c.0m m o.»
ooo: mwmm
ucoo .oz ammo .oz acoo .oz uaoo .oz ammo .oz ucoo .02
you pom .uom you yum yum
:IWHH cH-o . o-~ o-n o-m ~-H A

 

 

munmflzozu ZOHHZZMOMZH m<quaoauzAOUzHA zo NunzH <Hnmx mo Hommmu

ma Manda

241

 

 

 

o o.oc~ a c.m~ w «.mm o a.w~ cm m.¢n N vomauom
o o o.n~ n o.~n NH «.oN «a ¢.H~ m movuuovcb
o a 0.9m N a.m~ us o.- NH ~.n H avoaouu
c A o c.cn an ~.n~ a ~.~m NH ~.nn m moxaz
uaou .oz ammo .oz uooo .oz Ammu .oz unoo .oz uoooxxooz
pom ., Hum . hum . Hum . hum, . new .
.+H~ Ouua mus cum can and

 

 

r

AsHfiaduhhd Hannah—av Eur—kg 88> 20 Nana fig ho Human

co Manda

242

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o o.ooH H n.oH m o.HH o m.o~ AH ~.oo o ooHoHoo oz
0 o m.o ~ o.HH o o.m m o.“ H oz
o o ~.o~ oH H.oo - n.oo on ~.oo o no?
. unwoo> mm uoowmu .953
oooo .oz oooo .oz ooou .oz oooo .oz oooo .oz oooo .oz
you . you . uom . Mom . uom . Mom .
1+HH .oH-o m-H o-m o-m .IIMWMIII

 

 

02HHO> 20 Homhhn hG ZOHH<QA<>u zo NHGZH <Hamz m6 Huuhhu

ha mqmdfi

243

 

 

 

 

 

 

o c.ooH H «.om mH H.oo NH m.nH o m.Hm o omoHHoo
o o o.nH m m.om mH o.~o. «N m.Hm m Hooooo omHu
c o o m.nH o o.~o AN m.Hm m Hooooo ooooo
.uaoo .oz uaoo .oz uaoo .oz uaou .oz wave .02 uaoo .02
rack .uom . Hum . you . Mom . Mom .
.+HH cH-o w-H oom o-m H-H

 

 

26HH<UDGM BO NflDZH <Hnmx mo Bowman

ma nuntfi

APPENDIX D

ADDITIONAL FIGURES

FIGURE 2
manner OF ORIGIIATIM OP PROCEAIS (BY EDUCATION»

 

 

 

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\«

 

 

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\“

 

 

 

 

 

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
x\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\":

 

 

 

 

ee\\\\\\\\\\\\\\~;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. NE":

 

 

 

 

 

 

ooooo
8 8 $3 nnnnnn

k\\"§

FIGURE 3

 

 

 

 

W~

 

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\~5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KIWI-EDGE OF FIRST SPEAKER (B! NATION)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\X\\

111111111

 

1* EPHMF‘

4
WCWCM(ITMTIC)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\~
\\\\\\\\\~
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\~

We
W~

\\\\\\\\\\\\\:

\\\\\\\\~

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

llllllll

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

\\\. ..

iii: \\\\\\\\\\ .. :
3333331___  \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ .5
..:::;:‘_—:35-;  \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ _. .

 

    

 

 

 

 

_-

 

 

5-11—1’553 \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ 1 :
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ “

 

 

:é::3:::-7:T:5:l:3:‘ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ .. ..

 

 

1 :::3:3\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ " " '

 

 

 

::::3_1-_3.i:‘\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

 

 

:-:::::::::::-: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ . "

—

 

 

_e—u.

_ 13::112‘2135—1—{3 W .

 

 

_—

::_—:::-_-:;: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ n

—
h— —

 

 

 

11:11::- _ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ . .

 

 

 

 

 

g\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\fg

 

§§ .

s eééé so.

mu 17 V

251

 

 

 

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\§§§ ..
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ~

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WW"
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\~

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\~
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ~

 

 

 

KNOWLEDGE OF WHO SPOKE FIRST (BY POLITICAL PREFERENCE)

 

 

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\~
.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
.WW”

 

 

 

 

 

 

9 0
5g 9. s 2 s a 3 .9. s 2 o

" Refuse

Independent

Democrat

Republican

Politics

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Carter, Richard F. "Some Effects of the Great Debates," Abstracts 9;
Papers pg’gpp'American Sociological Association, 56th Annual
Session, 1961.

Cunningham and Halsh Agency. groadcastin , 56312, Phrch 23, 1959,
84'86e

Freeley, Austin J. "The Presidential Debates and the Speech Profeso
sion," QJS, XLVII, February 1961, 60u64.

Freeley, Austin J. "Who Won the Great Debates " A paper presented
at the SAA Convention, St. Louis, Missouri, December 28,
1960. Haltilithed.

George, Clark. "The Great Debates: Good TV " A paper presented to
the Central States Speech Association, Chicago, Illinois,

April 14, 1961. Dittoed.

Jackson, Ted. "The Third Nixon-Kennedy Debate." A paper presented to
the Central States Speech Association, April 14, 1961.

Mimeographed .

Eats, Elihu and Feldman, Jacob. "The Kennedy-Nixon Debates: A Survey
of Surveys," Studies £3 Public Communication, 4. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, Autum 1962.

Krause, Sidney. "Political Issues and the TV Debates," Abstracts 2;
Papers 2; the American Sociolggical Association, 56th Annual
Session, 1961.

Lang, Kurt and Lang, Glayds. o“Ordealby Debate," 499, Spring 1961.

Lang, Kurt and Lang, Glayds. "The Television Personality in Politics;
Some Considerations," 299, XXgl, Spring, 1956, 103-112,

McGrath, Joseph E. and McGrsth, Marion. “Effects of Partisanship
on Perception of Political Figures," £99, XXVIgZ, Summer‘\
1962, 237-248.

Nebergall, Roger E. A personal letter to the author (based on a
paper presented to the Central States Speech Association,

April 14, 1961).
253

254

Robinson, James A. "TV and the Elections: The Great Debate . . .
Good Politics " Presented at the Central States Speech
Association Nheting, Chicago, Illinois, April 14, 1961.
Dittoed.

Schrsmm, Wilbur and Carter, R. F. "Effectiveness of a Political
Telethon," :99, 23:1, April 1959, 121~127.

"The Architect of a Triumph on Television," Broadcasting, 59320,
November 14, 1961, p. 32.

The Great Debates, Sidney Kraus (ed.), Bloomington, Indianag
University of Indians Press, 1962.

Tucker, Duane E. "Broadcasting in the 1956 Oregon Campaign," Journal
2; Broadcasting, 3:3 (Summer 1959), pp. 225-243.

White, Irving 8. "Research report on the Kennedwaixon Debates,"
Abstracts p£_Papers 2; the American Sociological Association,
56th Annual Session, 1961.

I‘M-t
f e
C "I
C .3
If .r -
t. ‘2
I“?!
G
:32.
P
‘31:

. , .e t

., .1 , .
. g - .
. . ' 5,‘ 3»,

WW" * - . E. 9

s
\..; I. , .,. _
1‘ -i 7’ '— le‘. "
1 .- 'F I. ‘1. '- a

vi
. é, _ I _ '-- )
a gags—3" L ~.. .
, .'
1'4.

 

 

 

 

 

.1

11111

\\\\

\

M

4
0
7
\8
“5
m0
‘1
3
9
2
4|
3

I‘ll
\
\l\
\
Ill
‘1.
\|\
\
\
\I‘
\
I\l
I‘ll.
I‘ll
1|“.
\I‘
\1
ll
\I‘Il
ll‘
I\l\l
.1.“
\
1‘11