In an era of increasingly polarized politics, political debate can be intense. And it can also be confusing to voters who may not understand the nature of political debate or how a specific candidate might perform in one. Moreover, a misperception about debate can fuel feelings of hopelessness among Americans that might otherwise engage constructively with political processes.

For this reason, it is crucial to correct the public perception of political debate. That is the goal of new research from Modupe Akinola, the Barbara and David Zalaznick Professor of Business and Sheena Iyengar, the S.T. Lee Professor of Business at Columbia Business School, along with UC Berkeley Ph.D. student Michael White and colleagues. The study, published in the journal Scientific Reports, found that people misperceive both the frequency and format of political debate.

The nonpartisan organization that stages a debate, known as the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), is a national, nonprofit and independent body whose objective is to allow members of the public to sharpen their views in a focused debate format for the candidates running for president and vice president. Candidates are invited to participate in CPD-sanctioned debates only if they meet two objective criteria: (1) they must be on the ballot in enough states to win a majority of electoral votes and (2) they have a reasonable chance of winning based on current polling.

The participants in the experiment were asked to think about a debate they had seen or witnessed recently. They were asked to describe in open text boxes their experience with the debate and their prediction of what characteristics they would see in a typical debate.