Benoit 2014

The Functional Theory of Political Campaign Communication
Oxford Handbooks Online

The Functional Theory of Political Campaign
Communication
William L. Benoit
The Oxford Handbook of Political Communication
Edited by Kate Kenski and Kathleen Hall Jamieson
Print Publication Date: Aug 2017

Subject: Political Science, Political Methodology, Political Institutions
Online Publication Date: Oct 2014 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199793471.013.2
Abstract and Keywords
This chapter begins by arguing for the importance of election campaigns. Next, it
describes the Functional Theory of Political Campaign Discourse. Assumptions, key
concepts, and predictions are discussed. The chapter then summarizes the research that
has applied this theory to a wide variety of election campaign messages: US president
(primary and general), non-presidential (Senate, House, gubernatorial, mayoral), non-US
TV spots and debates, and news coverage of election campaigns. The three functions –
acclaims, attacks, and defenses – and the two topics – policy and character – are
discussed. The chapter discusses effects of campaign phase and incumbency on candidate
messages. Finally, this chapter addresses limitations of this theory and directions for
future research.
Keywords: Functional Theory, acclaims, attacks, defenses, policy, character, election campaigns, candidate
messages, incumbency, campaign phase
POLITICAL election campaigns are ubiquitous—and no more so than in the United States.
Candidates run for a myriad of elective offices including mayor, city council, congress
(state and federal), senate (state and federal), governor, president, and in some
jurisdictions, judgeships. In elections in other countries, US style campaigning seems to
be spreading. Presidential debates have been held in many countries, including Australia,
Canada, France, Germany, Iran, Israel, Italy, Northern Ireland, Poland, Scotland, South
Korea, Spain, Taiwan, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, and Wales. The use of television
spots is limited in some countries, but others allow use of this message form during
elections.
Page 1 of 12
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use.
Subscriber: University of Western Ontario; date: 03 May 2018

Importance of Election Campaigns

Of course, some citizens do not exercise their right to vote, but those who do have a say
in the direction of their city, county, congressional district, state, or country. For example,
regardless of which candidate one preferred in 2000, there is no doubt Texas Governor
George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore would each have reacted differently to the
tragedy of 9/11. Although some citizens do not actively seek out information on the
campaign (and one important purpose of television spots is to reach such people), they do
learn about the candidates and their issue positions during the course of campaigns.
Meta-analysis has confirmed that political campaign messages (debates and TV spots) are
capable of having significant effects on those who consume these messages (Benoit,
Hansen, and Verser, 2003; Benoit, Leshner, and Chattopadhyay, 2007). Accordingly,
political election campaigns are vital to the democratic form of government and
unquestionably merit scholarly attention. This chapter explicates the functional theory of
political campaign discourse, one approach to understanding election campaigns.
The Functional Theory of Political

(p. 196)
Campaigns
Functional theory views utterances in an election campaign as functional, or means to an
end. It begins with several assumptions about the nature of political campaigns. First,
voting is a comparative act. To win office, candidates only need to appear—and it is
important to keep in mind the fact that political campaigns are about perceptions—
preferable to their opponents.
Second, political candidates must contrast themselves with their opponents. Those
aspiring to lead do not need to disagree with their competitors on every salient issue.
Who would oppose creating jobs or keeping one’s country safe? But voters cannot prefer
one candidate to another if each is an exact copy of the other. Candidates must differ
from opponents on at least some points of comparison if they are to have a chance to
appear preferable to opponents. Communication enters elections at this stage.
The third assumption of functional theory is that voters learn candidate distinctions
through political messages disseminated by a variety of sources, including supporters,
the news media, supporters of opposing candidates, and special interest groups.
Candidates use messages in a variety of media to inform voters (directly and indirectly, as
other sources pass along some of the ideas from their campaign messages) about
themselves and their policies and to identify points of distinction with opponents. Figure
14.1 illustrates how information flows from candidates and media to voters.
Page 2 of 12

This diagram (p. 197)
reflects the fact that

multiple sources are active
in an election campaign as
well as the fact that
multiple ways exist for
information to reach
voters. Path 1 represents
messages from candidates
that reach a voter directly
(e.g., from watching a TV
Click to view larger spot). The second path
Figure 14.1. Election Campaign Information Flow. includes messages that
move from candidates to
the news media. Path 3 reflects messages from the media to a voter (which can include
information generated by the media and/or obtained from candidates). Path 4 represents
information from a candidate that reaches one voter and then is passed along, via
political discussion, to another voter (path 6). Path 5 includes information from the media
that reaches one voter directly and then other voters by political discussion (path 6
again).
Fourth, candidates establish preferability through acclaiming, attacking, and defending.

Acclaims address a candidate’s strengths or advantages. Attacks expose an opponent’s
weaknesses or disadvantages. Defenses respond to, or refute, attacks against a
candidate. Together, these three functions work as an informal form of cost-benefit
analysis. Conceptualizing vote choice as a variant of cost-benefit analysis does not mean
that functional theory assumes that voters quantify benefits (acclaims) or costs (attacks
and defenses) or engage in mathematical calculations to make vote choices. Acclaims, if
persuasive, have a tendency to increase perceived benefits. Attacks, if accepted by the
audience, are prone to increase apparent costs of an opponent. When embraced by
voters, defenses tend to reduce a candidate’s perceived costs. Of course, the attitudes
and existing knowledge of audience members and how they perceive messages from and
about candidates are very important. A candidate who advocates healthcare legislation
through acclaims (or who attacks an opponent’s healthcare proposal) may simultaneously
attract and repel different groups of voters.
Campaign discourse occurs on both policy and character. A candidate’s resources for
acclaiming, attacking, and defending are who he or she is (character) and what he or she
has done or will do in office (policy). Voters develop perceptions of candidates’ character
and policy, and, as noted earlier, are exposed to information from many sources that
influence perceptions of the candidates and their policy positions. But policy and
character are the two topics on which candidates acclaim, attack, and defend to foster
the impression that they are more worthy of election than the others seeking the office.
To succeed, a candidate must win a majority (or a plurality) of the votes cast in an
election (or a majority in the Electoral College for US presidential elections). Given that
Page 3 of 12

the electorate is divided on multiple contested issues (e.g., some preferring federal
financing of healthcare, others opposing it), it is likely that many voters prefer one
candidate on some issues and an opponent on others. But to be elected, political
candidates need not win the support of everyone potentially in the electorate but need
only to secure sufficient votes from those who actually bother to ballot. Table 14.1 offers
hypothetical illustrations of acclaims, attacks, and defenses on policy and character.
Functional theory also distinguishes among three forms of policy (past deeds, which
facilitate retrospective voting; future plans [means]; and general goals [ends]; the latter
two forms facilitate prospective voting). It also distinguishes three forms of character
(personal qualities, leadership ability, and ideals [values, principles]). (p. 198)
Table 14.1 Acclaims, Attacks, and Defenses on Policy and Character
Policy Character
Acclaim “I will reduce inflation.” “I will always be honest with

you.”
Attack “Job creation fell during my “My opponent cannot be trusted.”

opponent’s administration.”
Defend “My opponent is wrong to say I “It is simply false to say I don’t
raised taxes.” care about people.”
Functional theory (Benoit, 2007; see also Benoit 2014a, 2014b; Benoit, Blaney, and Pier,
1998; Benoit, McHale, Hansen, Pier, and McGuire, 2003; Benoit, Stein, McHale,
Chattopadhyay, Verser, and Price, 2007) advances several hypotheses about political
campaign messages, including these:
H1. Political candidates will use acclaims more frequently than attacks, and attacks
more often than defenses.
H2. Debates will have more defenses than other media.
H3. Policy comments will be more frequent than character comments in political
campaign discourse.
H4. General goals and ideals will be used more often to acclaim than to attack.
H5. Messages from candidates will use more acclaims and fewer attacks than
messages from other sources (e.g., political parties, independent groups).
H6. Incumbents acclaim and defend more, and attack less, than challengers.
H7. Incumbents will be more likely than challengers to use past deeds to acclaim;
challengers use past deeds to attack more than do incumbents.
H8. Acclaims are more common, and attacks less so, in primary than in general
campaign messages.
Page 4 of 12

H9. A focus on character is more common, and concentration on policy less so, in
primary than in general campaign messages.
H10. Attacks in the primary will be more likely to target candidates who are
members of the attacker’s own party than candidates of the other party.
H11. Attacks in primaries will be more likely to target the front runner than other
candidates.
H12. The front runner attacks candidates from the opposing party more than other
candidates.
H13. Campaign winners discuss policy more, and character less, than do losers.
H14. Campaign winners attack more on policy, and less on character, than losers.
H15. News coverage will overrepresent attacks and defenses and underrepresent
acclaims.
H16. News coverage will focus on the horse race (e.g., who is ahead in the polls or
who is campaigning where today).
H17. News coverage will overrepresent character and underrepresent policy.
Research driven by functional theory has investigated US presidential campaign

(p. 199)
messages for a variety of media and offices, including presidential TV spots (Benoit,
1999); presidential debates (e.g., Benoit and Hartcock, 1999; Benoit and Brazeal, 2002);
vice presidential debates (Benoit and Airne, 2005); announcement speeches (Benoit,
Henson, Whalen, and Pier, 2008); nominating convention acceptance addresses (Benoit,
Wells, Pier, and Blaney, 1999); and direct mail brochures (Benoit and Stein, 2005). The
theory has also been applied to US gubernatorial and Senate debates (Benoit, Brazeal,
and Airne, 2007); US gubernatorial, Senate, and House TV spots (Brazeal and Benoit,
2006; Benoit and Airne, 2009). Non-US TV spots (e.g., Wen, Benoit, and Yu, 2004) and
debates (e.g., Benoit and Klyukovski, 2006) have also been studied. Functional theory has
been extended to understand news coverage of political campaigns. Predictions include
(1) horse race coverage will be more common than policy or character, (2) news coverage
of campaigns will report attacks more frequently than candidates use attacks in their
messages, and (3) news coverage of elections will discuss character more, and policy less,
than candidate messages. Benoit, Stein, and Hansen (2005) content analyzed New York
Times’ coverage of US presidential campaigns, 1952–2000. Benoit, Hemmer, and Stein
(2010) applied functional theory to New York Times’ coverage of presidential primary
campaigns.
Over multiple years (1948–2012), studies of offices (president, vice president, governor,
senator, congressman, mayor, prime minister, chancellor); media (e.g., TV spots, debates,
speeches, websites, newspapers); and countries (e.g., Australia, Canada, Israel, South
Korea, Taiwan, the United Kingdom) support functional theory (see Benoit 2007). Only
rarely, for example in the 2004 Ukraine debates (Benoit and Klyukovski, 2006), does a
candidate attack more than he or she acclaims. However, that campaign was negative for
two reasons: accusations of vote fraud meant the first vote was declared invalid and a
second election was held; one of the candidates accused his opponent of having poisoned
him.
Page 5 of 12

One consistent exception to the general preference for acclaims over attacks occurs in
non-candidate messages (Benoit, 2007). Functional theory concerns what might be best
understood as reasons rather than causes. For example, candidates have a reason to
avoid excessive reliance on attacks: Many voters say they dislike mudslinging. This does
not mean candidates must acclaim more than they attack, just that there is a reason to do
so—and most candidates do in fact acclaim more than they attack (and use defense the
least). For example, we have data from 114 announcement speeches; six used more
attacks than acclaims. In those exceptions the two functions occurred at similar
frequencies (e.g., John Kerry in 2004 used forty-eight acclaims and forty-nine attacks).
So, exceptions occur but this prediction is almost always confirmed in election messages
from political candidates.
However, spots sponsored by political parties and interest groups tend to attack more
than candidate-sponsored ads. The assumption most likely at work is that an attack from
a candidate is more likely to backfire (upset voters who dislike mudslinging) than an
attack from a surrogate source. Another exception—from another type of surrogate
source—occurs when nominating convention keynote speeches typically have more
attacks (and fewer acclaims) than the candidates’ nomination acceptance addresses.
Defenses were never more common than acclaims or attacks in these data.
(p. 200)
Functional theory (Benoit, 2007) argues that candidates have three reasons to use few
defenses. Most attacks occur on a candidate’s weaknesses, so responding to those attacks
likely takes the candidate off-message. Second, defending could make the candidate
appear reactive rather than proactive. Finally, in order to defend against an attack the
candidate must identify the criticism being refuted; doing so could remind or inform
voters of a potential weakness. However, defenses are consistently more frequent in
debates than in other media. Functional theory argues that one of the reasons to
minimize attack—reminding or informing the audience of a potential weakness—does not
apply in debates, given that the candidate is probably responding to an attack just made
by an opponent.
Research on US presidential and non-presidential campaign messages, as well as that on

election debates held in other countries, has established that political candidates tend to
discuss policy more often than character (Benoit, 2007; TV spots in some countries are
exceptions: Kaid and Holtz-Bacha, 1995). Rather than being a mirror held up to reflect
the candidates’ messages, news coverage of campaigns addresses character more, and
policy less, than candidate messages; news coverage reports attacks more frequently
than candidates use them; and the most common topic of newspaper coverage is the
horse race (see Benoit, Stein, and Hansen, 2005; Benoit, Hemmer, and Stein, 2010).
Research (Benoit, 2007) consistently reports that general goals and ideals are used more
often as the basis for acclaims than attacks. It is easier to advocate more jobs (a goal) or
equality (an ideal) than to attack either idea.
Page 6 of 12

As noted earlier, the nature of the source of a political campaign message influences
functions: Candidates tend to use more acclaims and fewer attacks than other sources.
Nomination acceptance addresses tend to be more positive than keynote speeches. In
presidential TV spots candidates are prone to be more positive than narrators or other
speakers (Benoit, 1999). TV spots sponsored by the political parties and interest groups
tend to attack more, and acclaim less, than ads sponsored by candidates (Benoit, 2007).
Incumbent party candidates are typically more positive (use more acclaims and fewer
attacks) than challenger party candidates (Benoit, 2007). This is in large part a function
of how the candidates use past deeds or record in office in their campaign messages.
Incumbents have a record of performance in the office sought; with an occasional
exception (none for US presidential campaigns in recent history) challengers do not.
Arguably, the best evidence of how a candidate will perform in an office is how that
candidate has performed in that office. Accordingly, both incumbents and challengers talk
about the incumbent’s record more than the challenger’s record. Of course, when
incumbents discuss their own record they acclaim; when challengers discuss incumbents’
records they attack.
Primary and general election campaign messages have significant differences (Benoit,
2007). Attacks are more common in the general campaign than the primary. When
seeking their party’s nomination, candidates tend to use fewer attacks than after they
become the nominee. First, more policy differences (opportunities to attack) exist
between members of different parties (general election) than between members of the
same party (primary election). Second, a candidate hoping to become the nominee may
(p. 201) wish to moderate attacks on opponents in the primary in order to obtain their
support in the general election—and the support of party members who preferred the
winner’s opponents. In the primary campaign, most attacks target other candidates from
the source’s own political party and there is a direct relationship between a candidate’s
position in the poll and the number of attacks targeting that candidate in primary
debates; the front runner is more likely than other candidates to attack opposing party
candidates (Benoit, Pier, Brazeal, McHale, Klyukovksi, and Airne, 2002).
Research has also established that policy is discussed more frequently in the general
election than in the primary campaign (Benoit, 2007). Many candidates in the primary
phase are relatively unknown (think Dennis Kucinich or Hermann Cain) and they usually
begin by introducing themselves. As noted earlier, more policy differences exist between
members of different parties (general election) than among members of the same party
(primary). This means there are more opportunities to discuss policy in the general
election. Finally, some primary candidates continue to develop policy positions as the
campaign unfolds; in other words, especially at the beginning of the primary season some
candidates have fewer policy positions to discuss.
Election winners tend to discuss policy more, and character less, than losers (“winner”
refers to candidates who win their party’s nomination or the general election; it has
nothing to with which candidate is believed to have “won” a debate or whether a
Page 7 of 12

candidate won a caucus or primary; Benoit, 2003). Functional Theory argues that most
voters consider policy to be a more important determinant of their presidential vote than
character (public opinion polls support this explanation). Furthermore, when they attack,
election winners are more likely to criticize their opponents’ policy than their opponents’
character (Benoit, 2004); some evidence suggests that voters consider attacks on
character more offensive than attacks on policy (Johnson-Cartee and Copeland, 1989).
News coverage of election campaigns features more attacks and fewer acclaims than the
candidates employ in their campaign messages. As noted earlier, news coverage of
campaigns focuses on the horse race. When it does focus on policy and character, news
stories about elections privilege character over policy (Benoit, Stein, and Hansen, 2005).
Need for More Research

Although the effects of attack in political advertising have been extensively studied (see
Fallis, this handbook), there has been little systematic research assessing the effects of
attacks, acclaims, and defenses on audiences for other campaign genres, such as
speeches and debates (see, e.g., Reinemann and Maurer, 2005). Typologies of traits found
in political messages include Benoit and McHale’s (2004) typology of personal qualities
(e.g., honesty, determination, empathy), the trait batteries of Kinder (1986) and Miller et
al. (1986), and the catalogue of traits in ads compiled by Geer (2006). The effect of
character appeals also merits further study (see Hardy, this handbook). Indications that
people may react more favorably to attacks on policy than on character (Johnson-Cartee
(p. 202) and Copeland, 1989) justify research investigating functions and topics jointly—
as well as research on functions and topics in other campaign media. Further analysis of
candidates’ use of personal qualities in campaign messages should be pursued in future
research. It would be interesting to combine functional theory with the elaboration
likelihood model (ELM) (Petty and Cacioppo, 1986) or the theory of planned behavior
(TPB) (Fishbein and Ajzen, 2009) to do audience effects research. Two key elements of
the ELM are arguments and credibility, which correspond roughly to policy and character.
The ELM concerns how messages—which could be such campaign messages as TV spots
or debates—are processed by audience members. The TPB has potential because its
approach to integrating information and functional theory argues that candidate
messages supply information to voters in the form of acclaims, attacks, and defenses.
Recall the discussion of the three functions as an informal variant of cost-benefit analysis,
where voters must integrate the information provided by acclaims, attacks, and defenses.
Furthermore, sufficient data has been accumulated to permit longitudinal analysis of US
presidential campaigns, which could be very productive.
Page 8 of 12

Unanswered Questions
Functional theory focuses on selected aspects of political campaign messages (functions
and topics). It does not, for example, investigate other message features such as
argument structures or metaphors (although one study has investigated the use of
evidence in TV spots—evidence is more likely to be deployed in support of attacks than
acclaims or defenses; Henson and Benoit, 2010). Other variables related to message
production (besides, e.g., incumbency status, campaign phase, or political party
affiliation), such as competitiveness of race, merit attention. Some research has
investigated the functions and topics of non-presidential campaign messages (e.g., Airne
and Benoit, 2005; Benoit, Brazeal, and Airne, 2007; Benoit, Henson, and Maltos, 2007)
but more could be done here. Similarly, studies have begun to apply functional theory to
non-US campaign messages (e.g., Benoit and Henson, 2007; Benoit and Klyukovski, 2006;
Benoit and Sheafer, 2006; Benoit, Wen, and Yu, 2007; Lee and Benoit, 2004; Wen, Benoit,
and Yu, 2004), but further work in this area would be helpful. Political content in social
media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter) is also a fertile ground for research using functional
theory.
References
Airne, D., and Benoit, W. L. 2005. Political television advertising in campaign 2000.
Communication Quarterly 53: 473–492.
Benoit, W. L. 1999. Seeing spots: A functional analysis of presidential television

advertisements from 1952–1996. New York: Praeger.
Benoit, W. L. 2003. Topic of presidential campaign discourse and election outcome.

Western Journal of Communication 67: 97–112.
Benoit, W. L. 2004. Election outcome and topic of political campaign attack.

(p. 203)
Southern Communication Journal 69: 348–355.
Benoit, W. L. 2007. Communication in political campaigns. New York: Peter Lang.
Benoit, W. L. 2014a. A functional analysis of presidential television advertisements (2nd

ed.). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Benoit, W. L. 2014b. Political election debates: Informing voters about policy and
character. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Benoit, W. L., and Airne, D. 2005. A functional analysis of American vice presidential
debates. Argumentation and Advocacy 41: 225–236.
Page 9 of 12

Benoit, W. L., and Airne, D. 2009. A functional analysis of non-presidential TV spots in

campaign 2004. Human Communication 12: 91–117.
Benoit, W. L., and Benoit-Bryan, J. M. (2013). Debates come to the UK: A functional
analysis of the 2010 British prime minister election debates. Communication Quarterly
61: 463-478.
Benoit, W. L., Blaney, J. R., and Pier, P. M. 1998. Campaign ‘96: A functional analysis of
acclaiming, attacking, and defending. New York: Praeger.
Benoit, W. L., Blaney, J. R., and Pier, P. M. 2000. Acclaiming, attacking, and defending: A
functional analysis of nominating convention keynote speeches, 1960–1996. Political
Communication 17: 61–84.
Benoit, W. L., and Brazeal, L. M. 2002. A functional analysis of the 1988 Bush-Dukakis
presidential debates. Argumentation and Advocacy 38: 219–233.
Benoit, W. L., Brazeal, L. M., and Airne, D. 2007. A functional analysis of televised U.S.
Senate and gubernatorial campaign debates. Argumentation and Advocacy 44: 75–89.
Benoit, W. L., Hansen, G. J., and Verser, R. M. 2003. A meta-analysis of the effects of
viewing U.S. presidential debates. Communication Monographs 70: 335–350.
Benoit, W. L., and Harthcock, A. 1999. Functions of the Great Debates: Acclaims, attacks,
and defense in the 1960 presidential debates. Communication Monographs 66: 341–357.
Benoit, W. L., Hemmer, K., and Stein, K. 2010. New York Times’ coverage of American
presidential primary campaigns, 1952–2004. Human Communication 13: 259–280.
Benoit, W. L., and Henson, J. R. 2007. A functional analysis of the 2006 Canadian and
2007 Australian election debates. Argumentation & Advocacy 44: 36–48.
Benoit, W. L., Henson, J., Davis, C., Glantz, M., Phillips, A., and Rill, L. 2013. Stumping on
the Internet: 2008 presidential primary candidate campaign webpages. Human
Communication 16: 1-12.
Benoit, W. L., Henson, J. R., and Maltos, S. 2007. A functional analysis of mayoral debates.
Contemporary Argumentation and Debate 28: 20–37.
Benoit, W. L., Henson, J. R., Whalen, S., and Pier, P. M. 2008. “I am a candidate for
president”: A functional analysis of presidential announcement speeches. Speaker &
Gavel 45: 3–18.
Benoit, W. L., and Klyukovski, A. A. 2006. A functional analysis of 2004 Ukrainian

presidential debates. Argumentation 20: 209–225.
Benoit, W. L., Leshner, G. M., and Chattopadhyay, S. 2007. A meta-analysis of political

advertising. Human Communication 10: 507–522.
Page 10 of 12

Benoit, W. L., and McHale, 2004. Presidential candidates’ personal qualities: Computer
content analysis. In K. Hacker (Ed.), Presidential candidate images: Issues of theory and
measurement (pp. 49–63). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Benoit, W. L., McHale, J. P, Hansen, G. J., Pier, P. M., and McGuire, J. P. 2003. Campaign
2000: A functional analysis of presidential campaign discourse. Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield.
Benoit, W. L., Pier, P. M., Brazeal, L. M., McHale, J. P., Klyukovksi, A., and Airne,
(p. 204)
D. 2002. The primary decision: A functional analysis of debates in presidential primaries.

Westport, CT: Praeger.
Benoit, W. L., and Sheafer, T. 2006. Functional theory and political discourse: Televised
debates in Israel and the United States. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 83:
281–297.
Benoit, W. L., and Stein, K. A. 2005. A functional analysis of presidential direct mail
advertising. Communication Studies 56: 203–225.
Benoit, W. L., Stein, K. A., and Hansen, G. J. 2005. New York Times’ coverage of
presidential campaigns, 1952–2000. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 82:
356–376.
Benoit, W. L., Stein, K. A., McHale, J. P., Chattopadhyay, S., Verser, R., Price, S. 2007. Bush
versus Kerry: A functional analysis of campaign 2004. New York: Peter Lang.
Benoit, W. L., Wells, W. T., Pier, P. M., and Blaney, J. R. 1999. Acclaiming, attacking, and
defending in presidential nomination convention acceptance addresses, 1960–1996.
Quarterly Journal of Speech 85: 247–267.
Benoit, W. L., Wen, W-C., and Yu, T. 2007. A functional analysis of 2004 Taiwanese political
debates. Asian Journal of Communication 17: 24–39.
Brazeal, L. M., and Benoit, W. L. 2006. On the spot: A functional analysis of congressional
television spots, 1980–2004. Communication Studies 57: 401–420.
Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I. 2009. Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action
approach. New York: Psychology Press.
Geer, J. G. 2006. In defense of negativity: Attack ads in presidential campaigns. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.
Henson, J. R., and Benoit, W. L. 2010. Because I said so: A functional theory analysis of
evidence in political TV spots. Speaker & Gavel 47: 1–15.
Johnson-Cartee, K. S., and Copeland, G. 1989. Southern voters’ reactions to negative

political ads in the 1986 election. Journalism Quarterly 66: 888–893, 986.
Page 11 of 12

Kaid, L. L., and Holtz-Bacha, C. 1995. Political advertising across cultures. In L. L. Kaid
and C. Holtz-Bacha (Eds.), Political advertising in western democracies (pp. 206–227).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kinder, D. R. 1986. Presidential character revisited. In R. R. Lau and D. O. Sears (Eds.),

Political cognition: The 19th Annual Carnegie Symposium on cognition (pp. 233-255).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lee, C., and Benoit, W. L. 2004. A functional analysis of presidential television spots: A
comparison of Korean and American ads. Communication Quarterly 52: 68–79.
Miller, A. H., Wattenberg, M. P., and Malanchuk, O. 1986. Schematic assessment of

presidential candidates. American Political Science Review 80: 521–540.
Petty, R. E., and Cacioppo, J. T. 1986. Attitudes and persuasion: Central and peripheral
routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Reinemann, C., and Maurer, M. 2005. Unifying or polarizing short-term effects and
postdebate consequences of different rhetorical strategies in televised debates. Journal of
Communication 55: 775–794.
Wen, W-C., Benoit, W. L., and Yu, T-H. 2004. A functional analysis of the 2000 Taiwanese
and US presidential spots. Asian Journal of Communication 14: 140–155.
William L. Benoit
William L. Benoit (Ph.D. Wayne State University, 1979) is a Professor of

Communication Studies at Ohio University. He has published journal articles, book
chapters, and books on election campaign messages.
Page 12 of 12

Benoit 2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Benoit 2014

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Benoit 2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Functional Theory of Political Campaign Communication

Oxford Handbooks Online

Print Publication Date: Aug 2017

Abstract and Keywords

Subscriber: University of Western Ontario; date: 03 May 2018

Importance of Election Campaigns

The Functional Theory of Political

Subscriber: University of Western Ontario; date: 03 May 2018

This diagram (p. 197)

reflects the fact that

Fourth, candidates establish preferability through acclaiming, attacking, and defending.

Subscriber: University of Western Ontario; date: 03 May 2018

Table 14.1 Acclaims, Attacks, and Defenses on Policy and Character

Acclaim “I will reduce inflation.” “I will always be honest with

Attack “Job creation fell during my “My opponent cannot be trusted.”

Subscriber: University of Western Ontario; date: 03 May 2018

Research driven by functional theory has investigated US presidential campaign

Subscriber: University of Western Ontario; date: 03 May 2018

Research on US presidential and non-presidential campaign messages, as well as that on

Subscriber: University of Western Ontario; date: 03 May 2018

Subscriber: University of Western Ontario; date: 03 May 2018

Need for More Research

Subscriber: University of Western Ontario; date: 03 May 2018

Benoit, W. L. 1999. Seeing spots: A functional analysis of presidential television

Benoit, W. L. 2003. Topic of presidential campaign discourse and election outcome.

Benoit, W. L. 2004. Election outcome and topic of political campaign attack.

Southern Communication Journal 69: 348–355.

Benoit, W. L. 2007. Communication in political campaigns. New York: Peter Lang.

Benoit, W. L. 2014a. A functional analysis of presidential television advertisements (2nd

Subscriber: University of Western Ontario; date: 03 May 2018

Benoit, W. L., and Airne, D. 2009. A functional analysis of non-presidential TV spots in

Benoit, W. L., and Klyukovski, A. A. 2006. A functional analysis of 2004 Ukrainian

Benoit, W. L., Leshner, G. M., and Chattopadhyay, S. 2007. A meta-analysis of political

Subscriber: University of Western Ontario; date: 03 May 2018

D. 2002. The primary decision: A functional analysis of debates in presidential primaries.

Geer, J. G. 2006. In defense of negativity: Attack ads in presidential campaigns. Chicago:

Johnson-Cartee, K. S., and Copeland, G. 1989. Southern voters’ reactions to negative

Subscriber: University of Western Ontario; date: 03 May 2018

Kinder, D. R. 1986. Presidential character revisited. In R. R. Lau and D. O. Sears (Eds.),

Miller, A. H., Wattenberg, M. P., and Malanchuk, O. 1986. Schematic assessment of

William L. Benoit (Ph.D. Wayne State University, 1979) is a Professor of

Subscriber: University of Western Ontario; date: 03 May 2018

You might also like