Article published In:
Journal of Argumentation in ContextVol. 3:2 (2014) ► pp.153–168
A functional analysis of the 2010 Australian Prime Minister debate
This study applied the Functional Theory of Political Campaign Discourse to the July 25, 2010 Australian Prime Minister debate. Attacks were more common than acclaims, both of which occurred more frequently than defenses. Incumbent Prime Minister Gillard acclaimed more, and attacked less, than challenger Abbott. This contrast was particularly acute when the candidates discussed past deeds (record in office). The two candidates discussed policy more than character. When discussing general goals and ideals, they acclaimed more than they attacked. These results are compared with studies of political leaders debates in other countries and elections.
Keywords: Australia 2010, Prime Minister debate, incumbent, challenger, Functional Theory, policy, character
References
ABC Elections
Baker, K.L., and H. Norpoth
1981 “Candidates on Television: The 1972 Electoral Debates in West Germany.” Public Opinion Quarterly 451: 329–345. 
Benoit, W.L
2006 “Retrospective versus Prospective Statements and Outcome of Presidential Elections.” Journal of Communication 561: 331–345.
2007 Communication in Political Campaigns. New York: Peter Lang.
2014 Political election debates: Informing voters about policy and character. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Benoit, W.L., J.R. Blaney, and P.M. Pier
1998 Campaign ‘96: A Functional Analysis of Acclaiming, Attacking, and Defending. New York: Praeger.
Benoit, W.L., and L.M. Brazeal
2002 “A Functional Analysis of the 1988 Bush-Dukakis Presidential Debates.” Argumentation and Advocacy 381: 219–233.
Benoit, W.L., G.J. Hansen, and R.M. Verser
2003 “A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Viewing U.S. Presidential Debates.” Communication Monographs 701: 335–350.
Benoit, W.L., and A. Harthcock
1999 “Functions of the Great Debates: Acclaims, Attacks, and Defense in the 1960 Presidential Debates.” Communication Monographs 661: 341–357.
Benoit, W.L., and J.R. Henson
2007 “A Functional Analysis of the 2006 Canadian and 2007 Australian Election Debates.” Argumentation & Advocacy 441: 36–48.
Benoit, W.L., and A.A. Klyukovski
2006 “A Functional Analysis of the 2004 Ukrainian Debates.” Argumentation 201: 209–225.
Benoit, W.L., J.P. McHale, G.J. Hansen, P.M. Pier, and J.P. McGuire
2003 Campaign 2000: A Functional Analysis of Presidential Campaign Discourse. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Benoit, W.L., P.M. Pier, L.M. Brazeal, J.P. McHale, A. Klyukovksi, and D. Airne
2002 The Primary Decision: A Functional Analysis of Debates in Presidential Primaries. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Benoit, W.L., and T. Sheafer
2006 “Functional Theory and Televised Discourse: Televised Debates in Israel and the United States.” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 831: 281–297.
Benoit, W.L., K.A. Stein, J.P. Mchale, S. Chattopadhyay, R. Verser, and S. Price
2007 Bush versus Kerry: A Functional Analysis of Campaign 2004. New York: Peter Lang.
Benoit, W.L., and W.T. Wells
1996 Candidates in Conflict: Persuasive Attack and Defense in the 1992 Presidential Debates. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Benoit, W.L., W-C. Wen, and T. Yu
2007 “A Functional Analysis of 2004 Taiwanese Political Debates.” Asian Journal of Communication 171: 24–39.
Blais, A., and M.M. Boyer
1996 “Assessing the Impact of Televised Debates: The Case of the 1988 Canadian Election.” British Journal of Political Science 261: 143–164.
Blais, A., E. Gidengil, R. Nadeau, and N. Nevitte
2003 “Campaign Dynamics in the 2000 Canadian Election: How the Leader Debates Salvaged the Conservative Party.” PS: Political Science & Politics 361: 45–50.
Blais, A., and A.M.L. Perrella
2008 “Systemic Effects of Televised Candidates’ Debates.” International Journal of Press/Politics 131: 451–464.
Blum-Kulka, S., and T. Liebes
2000 “Peres versus Netanyahu: Television Wins the Debate, Israel, 1996.” In Televised Election Debates: International Perspectives, ed. by S. Coleman, 66–91. London: Macmillan.
Chaffee, S.H
1978 “Presidential Debates: Are they Helpful to Voters?” Communication Monographs 491: 330–346.
Coleman, J
(ed.) 2000 Televised Election Debates: International Perspectives. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Coleman, S
2011 Leaders in the Living Room: The Prime Ministerial Debates of 2010: Evidence, Evaluation, and Some Recommendations. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
Elections Canada
2011 General Election. 2012. Accessed 2/22/12: [URL]
Van Eemeren, F.H
Fass, T., and J. Maier
2004 “Chancellor-Candidates in the 2002 Televised Debates”. German Politics 131: 300–316.
Galasinski, D
1998 “Strategies of Talking to Each Other: Rule Breaking in Polish Presidential Debates.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 171: 165–182.
Global News
Harold Sun
Hellweg, S.A., M. Pfau, and S.R. Brydon
1992 Televised Presidential Debates: Advocacy in Contemporary America. New York: Praeger.
Jamieson, K.H., and D.S. Birdsell
1988 Presidential Debates: The Challenge of Creating an Informed Electorate. New York: Oxford University Press.
Jarman, J.W
2005 “Political Affiliation and Presidential Debates: A Real-Time Analysis of the Effect of Arguments Used in the Presidential Debates.” American Behavioral Scientist 491: 229–242.
Kaid, L.L., and A. Johnston
2001 Videostyle in Presidential Campaigns Style and Content of Televised Political Advertising. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Khang, H
2008 “A Cross-Cultural Perspective on Videostyles of Presidential Debates in the US and Korea.” Asian Journal of Communication 181: 47–63.
Kraus, S
(ed.) 1962 The Great Debates: Kennedy vs. Nixon, 1960. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
(ed.) 1979 The Great Debates: Carter versus Ford 1976. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Lanoue, D.J
1991 “Debates that Mattered: Voters’ Reaction to the 1984 Canadian Leadership Debates.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 241: 51–65.
LeDuc, L., and R. Price
1985 “Great Debates: The Televised Leadership Debates of 1979.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 181: 135–153.
Louden, A
Maier, J., and T. Faas
2003 “The Affected German Voter: Televised Debates, Follow-up Communication, and Candidate Evaluations.” Communications 281: 383–404.
Matsaganis, M., and C. Weingarten
2001 “The 2000 U.S. Presidential Debate versus the 2000 Greek Prime Minister Debate.” American Behavioral Scientist 441: 2398–409.
McKinney, M.S., and D.B. Carlin
2004 “Political Campaign Debates.” In Handbook of Political Communication Research, ed. by L.L. Kaid, 203–234. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Merritt, S
1984 “Negative Political Advertising: Some Empirical Findings.” Journal of Advertising 131: 27–38.
O’Keefe, D.J
1977 “Two Concepts of Argument.” Journal of the American Forensic Association 131: 121–128.
Reinemann, C., and M. Maurer
2005 “Unifying or Polarizing Short-Term Effects and Postdebate Consequences of Different Rhetorical Strategies in Televised Debates.” Journal of Communication 551: 775–794.
Rill, L., and W.L. Benoit
2009 A Functional Analysis of 2008 General Election Debates. Chicago, IL: National Communication Association.
Schrott, P.R
1990 “Electoral Consequences of “Winning” Televised Campaign Debates.” Public Opinion Quarterly 541: 567–585.
Stewart, C.J
1975 “Voter Perception of Mud-Slinging in Political Communication.” Central States Speech Journal 261: 279–286.
Wells, W.T
1999 An Analysis of Attacking, Acclaiming, and Defending Strategies in the 1976-1984 Presidential Debates. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Missouri, Columbia.
Cited by
Cited by 1 other publications
Maskor, Mazlan, Niklas K. Steffens & S. Alexander Haslam
2021. The Psychology of Leadership Destabilization: An Analysis of the 2016 U.S. Presidential Debates. Political Psychology 42:2 ► pp. 265 ff. 
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.