1
Civil Dialogue® as a Tool for Citizens Watching the 2012
Presidential and Vice Presidential Debates
Clark D. Olson
Hugh Downs School of Human Communication
Arizona State University
Clark.olson@asu.edu
John Genette
Black Mountain Communications
John.Genette@asu.edu
Jennifer A. Linde
Hugh Downs School of Human Communication
Arizona State University
Jlinde@asu.edu
A white paper on the impact of CD used to accompany Presidential and Vice
Presidential debates
2
Justification
Much has been written about presidential debates given their rather short tenure
in American history (The Racine Group, 2002). Held first in 1960 involving Kennedy
and Nixon and then discontinued until 1976, presidential debates have been held in
some form, with certain national participants every four years since. Given the
widespread media coverage presidential debates have been given, they have spawned
a series of primary debates even before the actual candidates have been nominated by
their respective parties and today even serve as a useful tool for gaining exposure in the
nominating process (Halpern & Heilemann, 2013, McKinney & Warner, 2013).
However, what impact do these debates actually have in the electoral process?
While some have argued that skill in presidential debating does not always translate into
electoral success (McKinney & Warner, 2013, 252), presidential debates do help
audiences “reinforce prior commitments, gain information about the candidates, and in
some instances, determine which candidate to support in a campaign” (Dailey, Hinck
and Hinck, 2005, 196). They continue to note that often debates engender confrontation
and conflict over policy, character, and priorities and place each candidate’s political
image at risk. Given this, presidential debates have been likened to blood sports, as if
our national leaders are reduced to gladiators in a ring, waiting for opponents to show
any signs of weakness and then pouncing on those opportunities to demonstrate their
own strengths. Even sparring with debate moderators has become a subject of
discussion as presidential candidates work to strengthen their images by appearing
“presidential” and seeming to take control.
3
What is not often considered is the role of civility in presidential debates. Other
than a comprehensive analysis by Dailey, Hinck, and Hinck (Hinck & Hinck, 2002; Daily,
Hinck & Hinck, 2005; Dailey, Hinck & Hinck, 2008) focusing on politeness theory, few
scholars have even investigated the role civility plays in the presidential debating
process. As the architects of Civil Dialogue® (Genette, Linde, & Olson, 2010, 2011),
our interest stems not only from the civility shown during by candidates during
presidential debates, but in how the process of Civil Dialogue impacts citizens’
perspectives of the debates themselves and if this process of having a civil discussion
following watching a presidential debate might impact the perceptions of the candidates.
McKinney and Warner have noted that given the length of the nomination process and
the impact of widespread media coverage, by the time the fall presidential debates
actually occur in the election cycle political cynicism is at an all-time high going into the
debates (2013, 255). Therefore, given the mix of political cynicism combined with the
brash partisanship that has characterized recent elections, opportunities to civilly
discuss presidential debates would not only seem welcome, but necessary.
Following the third recommendation of The Racine Group to investigate ways to
optimize the potential of presidential debate, this current study was conducted during
the 2012 presidential election. We sponsored debate watching events during each of
the presidential and vice presidential debates held on our local campus. The public was
invited to attend these events where en masse, groups from a few dozen to nearly 100
citizens watched the debates together, then were invited to participate in a Civil
Dialogue about what they had just seen.
4
For those unfamiliar with Civil Dialogue, it is a tool to explore citizen reaction to
political rhetoric (Genette, 2004). CD (a.k.a. “Hot Topics, Cool Heads”™) features
spontaneous, face-to-face interaction among students/citizens (not a panel of experts)
in an atmosphere that promotes respect and equanimity. Audience members consider
a provocative statement, and volunteer participants are called upon to embody their
positions in a semi-circle of five chairs on stage — “Agree Strongly,” “Agree Somewhat,”
“Neutral/Undecided,” “Disagree Somewhat,” and “Disagree Strongly.” It is not a contest;
the goal is not to seek advocacy but to reacquaint the public with the notion that citizens
can have differing viewpoints or disagree without demonizing the opposition. Each
volunteer begins with a one-minute statement explaining why they assumed the chair
they did. The facilitator then “bows out” of the conversation for approximately ten
minutes to allow the five participants to civilly discuss the topic, questioning each other,
perhaps providing prompts or support should one position become dominant or
confused . Following this dialogue, the facilitator invites audience members to ask
questions, provide feedback, offer opinions, etc. for another ten minutes, whereupon,
each of the original volunteers is asked to give a closing statement, explaining where
they stand on the issue following the discussion, if they would take the same chair now,
and what new insights they received on the topic resulting from the discussion. The
facilitator then thanks the participants and provides summary comments to close the
round of CD.
Procedure
In this study, four debate watching events were held. To maximize attendance
they were sponsored not only by the Hugh Downs School of Human Communication at
5
Arizona State University, but also by our Undergraduate Student Government, Graduate
and Professional Student Association, and the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism
and Mass Communication. The debate watches were held in 4 different locations, two
in central campus locations in large rooms of our Memorial Union, one in the Empty
Space adjacent to campus, and one at the downtown Phoenix campus in the First
Amendment Forum of the Walter Cronkite School. While no formal attendance was
taken, the four debates were watched by approximately 200 individuals. Surprisingly,
the audience was comprised not only of ASU students, but community members,
church members, university employees, among a host of others. Preliminary data was
gathered to survey the impact of the debates and Civil Dialogue on the utility of the
debates and the dialogue. 28 participants completed usable surveys, so our preliminary
findings cannot be used to determine statistical significance, but can be useful in
determining how CD can be used for future debates as well as provide insights for
future research.
Initially participants were asked to indicate which candidate they supported and
the likeliness with which they were to cast their ballot for that candidate. This data was
collected prior to the debate, after watching the debate, and after watching/participating
in a Civil Dialogue. The debates were introduced by sponsors, the process of CD was
explained, and then the debate was viewed, attempting to find broadcasts which
contained a minimum of audience reaction or comments. Before the spin doctors and
political pundits could dissect the debate, the broadcast was turned off and the
statement for the CD was revealed. For example, after the first debate, the statement
was “Mitt Romney won tonight’s debate.” Participants were usually eager to “take a
6
chair” and participate in the evening’s dialogue. Our rules of civility were repeated, and
participants often locked horns on the issues in the debate, how the candidates
behaved, and what their own notions were not only of civility, but of what characteristics
made a candidate presidential. Audience reactions were also lively.
At the conclusion of the evening, participants were asked if they took a chair,
how useful the Civil Dialogue was in processing their viewing of the debate, if they felt
encouraged to participate in the dialogue, how civil the dialogue was, and finally if they’d
return to another CD and/or recommend it to others.
Results
Consistent with the findings of McKinney and Warner, these debates, held
October 3, 11, 16, and 23 were but a month before the election and many participants
had already made up their mind which candidate they were supporting so the amount of
change between who they supported initially, post debate, and post CD was negligible.
25% (n=7) of the respondents took a chair during the CD and 90%(N=25) felt at
least somewhat encouraged to participate in the CD (mean=3.78 on a 5 point scale).
The number who found CD useful to the process was unclear as this question suffered
from reverse coding on the survey, so results were unclear.
Furthermore, and perhaps most significantly, 93% (n=26) noted that they were
likely to return to another Civil Dialogue (mean=4.5; sd=.745) while 89% indicated they
were likely to recommend CD to others (mean-4.57; sd=.690).
7
Discussion
While few definitive results can be concluded from this study, preliminary results
indicate that by the time the presidential debates occur in the election cycle, most
people have already made up their mind. While Jamieson and Birdsell (1988) found
that prior to debate movement in the polls slows as the electorate suspends its
willingness to be swayed by ads and news for the opportunity to see the candidates
side by side. Our results found insignificant movement post debate or post CD for
either candidate in the debate. Perhaps in primary debates, where candidates from the
same party are less likely to speak ill of their same party candidates (Hinck, Hinck,
Dailey, & Hinck, 2013) or in statewide or local elections where debates become heated
(Olson, 2005), the role of Civil Dialogue could even further impact the processing of
contentious debates.
The process of Civil Dialogue was one we were eager to see in concert with the
presidential debates. Across the 4 debates only 20 chairs were available to direct
participation (5 in each CD), we were encouraged to see people willing to share their
opinions on the debate. While no definitive results were found regarding how CD
impacted the processing of the immediate debate, this remains a fruitful avenue for
future research.
Finally, we were highly encouraged to see the basic response to Civil Dialogue.
Given the contention and partisanship surrounding the past election, inviting people to
be confronted about their beliefs, we note that not only did people feel encouraged to
participate in a Civil Dialogue, but a significant number were likely to return to another
Civil Dialogue and would recommend it to others. Anecdotal comments following the
8
debate watch event confirmed this. It was not uncommon to hear “I wish _______,
would have attended this event. We disagree so strongly and have a hard time even
talking about politics.”
Conclusion
While the old adage about never discuss sex, politics or religion may seem a
wise one, our decade long experience with Civil Dialogue seems to counter
conventional wisdom. In our experience, Civil Dialogue can be used as a useful format
to explore the nuances of disagreements about sexual value, religion, and in this current
study, politics. Though candidates may not always present the most “civil” front during
the debates, creating an environment that promotes civility when discussing hot topics
is essential to the democratic process. Toward that end, Civil Dialogue seems to be a
useful tool not only when watching, absorbing, and processing presidential debates, but
also wherever controversy exists.
9
References
Daily, W.O., Hinck, E.A., & Hinck, S.S. (2005) Audience perceptions of politeness
and dovocacy skills in the 2000 and 2004 presidential debates. Argumentation and
Advocacy. 41. 196-210.
Dailey, W.O., Hinck E.A., & Hinck, S. S. (2008). Politeness in presidential
debates: Shaping face in campaign debates from 1960 to 2004. Landham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield.
Genette, J. (2004). Takin' it to the streets: practicing rhetorical criticism in
communities. Unpublished manuscript, Hugh Downs School of Human Communication,
Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.
Genette, J., Linde, J. & Olson, C. D. (2010) Civil dialogue: Diffusing polarization
and seeking insights.
http://humancommunication.clas.asu.edu/files/CDwhitepaperfinalversion3-11.pdf
Genette, J., Linde, J. & Olson, C. D. (2011) Creating a Civil Dialogue™ Event:
The necessary framework. http://www.civil-dialogue.com./files/howto/CDwhitepaper611.pdf
Hinck, E.A., & Hinck, S.S. (2002). Politeness strategies in the 1992 vice
presidential and presidential debates. Argumentation and Advocacy. 38. 234-250.
Hinck, S. S., Hinck, R. S., Dailey, W. O. & Hinck, E. A. (2013). Thou shalt not
speak ill of any fellow republication? Politeness theory in the 2012 republican primary
debates. Argumentation and Advocacy. 49. 259-274.
Jamieson, K.H. & Birdsell, D.S. (1988). Presidential debates: The challenge of
creating an informed electorate. New York: Oxford.
McKinney, M.S. & Warner, B. R. (2013). Do presidential debates matter?
Examining a decade of campaign debate effects. Argumentation and Advocacy. 49,
238-258.
Olson, K.M. (2005). Analyzing televised political debates in the 2004 election
cycle. Argumentation and Advocacy, 41. 191-195.
The Racine Group (2002). White paper on televised political campaign debates.
Argumentation and Advocacy. 38. 199-218.