Amid heightened political polarization, Americans often feel like they don’t get to hear enough from their candidates. Those who organize debates and those who watch them agree that a better balance of discussion is needed, especially when it comes to addressing complex policy challenges where opinions range widely and solutions are not yet clear.
However, a new study suggests that people misperceive both the frequency and format of political debate. This may contribute to feelings of hopelessness, which previous research has found to predict voting behavior in elections and civic engagement.
In our lab and online experiments, we asked participants to think about a recent presidential or congressional debate they had seen or observed. We then asked participants about whether they thought the debate was informative and if it made them feel hopeful about America’s future. Participants were assigned to two arms of the experiment: an experience arm and a prediction arm. The experience arm asked about their personal experiences with debates, while the prediction arm compared their predictions of how many experienced respondents would say they had the same experience.
We also studied the debate set up, which is largely unchanged since the first CPD presidential debates in 1992. In the current debate format, each candidate is allotted approximately 45 minutes of speaking time and each moderator-posed topic is allocated equal time. A chess clock, displayed in the center of the stage, indicates how much time remains; the candidate can hit it to take control of the floor. When a candidate runs out of speaking time, the debate is over.