When Your Political Opinion Isn't Yours Alone

[One Sweet World]

The Wall Street Journal has a great column today about CNN's stupid gimmicking graphics that show the pundits' ratings.

Excuse me if I'm harping on this subject, but I think it's kind of offensive how they try to suggest what you should think.

Here's the column in full:

During Tuesday night's presidential debate, Sen. Barack Obama was talking about health care, and most of 25 undecided voters in Columbus, Ohio, liked what they heard. They turned knobs on small, wireless dials in their hands -- and a graph representing their immediate reaction was aired live to about 9.2 million people watching CNN.

For 2008's presidential debates, CNN has assembled focus groups that use handheld dials to record their sentiments. Those reactions are displayed in real time on the bottom of the screen. Watch a clip of the technology in use. (Oct. 9)

CNN has aired these squiggly lines live on the bottom of the screen for all of the debates held since September. Some have called the readout addictive, others find it distracting.

But live feedback graphics may have another effect. Recent psychological experiments suggest they can influence viewers' judgments. That might give tiny focus groups outsize influence, especially over undecideds. But there is a broader question: How much of our political opinions are our own?

"We don't realize how much we are influenced by other people," said Steven Fein, a social psychology professor at Williams College who has used footage from presidential debates in experiments examining how voters might be swayed. "We can't ignore what we think other people think."

Dial-testing is widely used to evaluate new TV shows, commercials, even arguments for use in court. It also long has been a popular tool for political consultants and TV-news pundits. Several news outlets this year -- including CBS News, Fox News and MSNBC -- have assembled voters to watch debates while registering their reactions by turning a dial or pushing a button. Those reactions are averaged to generate colorful trend lines that rise and fall with the action.

Often, the groups turn their dials up when they hear specific plans, like Sen. John McCain's desire for tax cuts or Sen. Obama's charges against CEOs' golden parachutes. By contrast, they turn them down when candidates repeat obvious catchphrases or go on the attack, said Rita Kirk, a professor of communications and public affairs at Southern Methodist University who is running CNN's focus groups.

CNN's debate coverage includes real-time scoring from reporters and pundits and undecided voters in Columbus, Ohio. The voters' reactions are divided by gender and measured by a rising and falling lines on a graph on the bottom center of the screen.

On-screen charts are just one of a host of outside factors that might influence judgments. Some have argued polls can have a "bandwagon effect." Debate spin is often based on the idea that framing the discussion can shape views. And reactions among fellow debate watchers can have as profound an effect as a laugh track.

Two studies published in the last two years suggest continuous-reaction graphs can affect opinions -- at least in an experimental setting. In one, led by a researcher at Emory University, 253 college students evaluated "American Idol"-like performances with fake audience feedback superimposed on screen. Those who saw negative reactions themselves viewed the performances more negatively.

In a study conducted by Dr. Fein, 94 college students used dial-meters while watching a 10-minute excerpt of a 1984 debate between Ronald Reagan and Walter Mondale with on-screen feedback manipulated to favor one candidate or the other. Those who saw pro-Reagan feedback were 2.8 times more likely to say they would have voted for Mr. Reagan than those in the Mondale group; in the pro-Mondale group, participants were 1.8 times more likely to say they would have voted for Mr. Mondale.

SMU's Dr. Kirk said she and her colleagues had discussed whether airing the focus group's reactions in real time would sway viewers' opinions. But they decided that it was more likely to keep viewers engaged.

Dan Schill, another SMU professor who conducts the CNN focus groups with Dr. Kirk, said the two studies are valuable, but that more empirical data are needed. Voters watching an actual debate have far more at stake than students in an artificial experiment, he said.

"Our argument is that when people see the dials, it sparks conversation," said Dr. Kirk, who has been studying how technology can increase civic engagement.


"It's a little like hearing the crowd at a sporting event," said David Bohrman, CNN's Washington bureau chief and producer of the debates, who thinks the chart helped boost ratings. "You hear the cheers and the boos."

There used to be more of those. In that 1984 debate, when Mr. Reagan was asked whether his advanced age ever made him doubt his abilities, he responded, "I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience" to thunderous applause. Even his opponent, Walter Mondale, smiled. Mr. Mondale later said that's when he knew he had lost the election.

In another experiment, Dr. Fein showed a 40-minute excerpt of that debate to 53 college students, some seeing it with the audience's reaction and others without. Mr. Reagan won by a 4-to-1 margin with the cheers; without the audience reaction, victory was heavily Mr. Mondale's.

The Commission on Presidential Debates has been strict about audience silence ever since partisans became unusually raucous in 1988 debates -- including the vice-presidential match-up in which Lloyd Bentsen quipped that opponent Dan Quayle was "no Jack Kennedy." Janet Brown, the commission's executive director, said the ban is intended to save time and avoid noises that could confuse the television audience.

"If you hear a person cheering when a candidate says something, it changes the nature of the reactions, or it could," said PBS NewsHour's Jim Lehrer, who has moderated 11 debates. "The debate ought to be seen by the viewers in the purest form possible."

At CNN, the on-screen chart is part of an effort by Mr. Bohrman to update the look of the fall debates. Dr. Kirk said she makes sure the focus groups are representative of their region, and include persuadable voters -- including searching social-networking sites for participant bias. "It's another layer of information, but I don't buy that it's swaying people's votes," Mr. Bohrman said.

Dr. Fein has been experimenting on how audience reactions can alter debate viewers' opinions since 1992, when he used a debate between George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Ross Perot to show that intentionally slanted commentary from fellow watchers could affect who subjects thought had won.

Still, he confesses he is drawn to the CNN readout: "Every time they would say something, I was thinking, 'What were the Ohio people saying?'" he said. "You can't look away."