ABSTRACT This study tests persuasive effects of 30 debate performances drawn from samples (n = 5780) of 22 states over four election cycles (2004–2016). We test partisanship of the candidate, type of debate (presidential or vice-presidential), gender of the candidate, whether it was the first debate of the cycle, and whether it was a town-hall debate as possible moderators. Results reveal that viewers are likely to perceive their inparty candidate more favorably after viewing a debate, particularly for vice-presidential candidates, Democratic candidates, and female candidates. Debate viewing did not consistently influence evaluations of the outparty candidate. We conclude that debates can persuade and argue for a reconceptualization of partisan-motivated reasoning as a constraint on political persuasion.

中文翻译：

---

重新考虑党派偏见作为辩论说服效果的制约因素

摘要 本研究测试了从 22 个州的样本 (n = 5780) 四个选举周期 (2004-2016) 中抽取的 30 场辩论表演的说服效果。我们测试候选人的党派性、辩论类型（总统或副总统）、候选人的性别、是否是该周期的第一场辩论，以及是否是市政厅辩论作为可能的主持人。结果显示，观众在观看辩论后可能更喜欢他们的党内候选人，尤其是副总统候选人、民主党候选人和女性候选人。观看辩论并没有持续影响对党外候选人的评价。我们得出的结论是，辩论可以说服并主张重新概念化以党派为动机的推理，作为对政治说服的约束。