|
Influence
of Political Campaign Advertising 1
Running Head: INFLUENCE OF POLITICAL CAMPAIGN ADVERTISING
Impact of Soft-Money-Sponsored Issue Advocacy Advertising
versus Candidate-Sponsored Positive and Negative Advertising:
Influences on Candidate Preferences and Democratic Processes
Michael Pfau, R. Lance Holbert, Erin Alison Szabo, and Kelly Kaminski
Please direct all replies concerning this manuscript to Michael Pfau, School of
Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Wisconsin--Madison, 5016 Vilas
Hall, Madison, WI 53706. Office phone: (608)-262-0334; home phone:
(608)-827-8224; fax number: (608)-262-1361;
e-mail address: [log in to unmask]
Authors' Note:
Michael Pfau is Professor and Director of Graduate Studies in the School of
Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Wisconsin--Madison. R.
Lance Holbert, Erin Alison Szabo, and Kelly Kaminski are graduate students in
the School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of
Wisconsin--Madison.
Influence
of Political Campaign Advertising 2
Abstract
Spending on soft-money-sponsored issue advocacy advertising has grown
dramatically in recent years and, in some campaigns, now approaches levels of
candidate-sponsored advertising. However, the question of the influence of
soft-money-sponsored issue advocacy advertising on the electorate or its
indirect influence on democratic processes has received scant attention in
political communication research. This investigation examined the influence of
soft-money-sponsored issue advocacy advertising in House and Senate campaigns,
comparing its effects with candidate-sponsored positive and negative advertising
on candidate preferences and matters intrinsic to democratic processes. The
pattern of results revealed no main effects for advertising approach on
candidate preference. Instead, advertising approach exerted unique impacts based
on viewer party affiliation. Candidate-sponsored negative advertising was
influential primarily with Republican viewers, whereas soft-money-sponsored
issue advocacy advertising was effective only with nonpartisans. The influence
of advertising approach on democratic process was especially revealing. Viewer
exposure to candidate-sponsored advertising, both positive and negative,
elicited greater viewer awareness and interest in the campaigns and more
knowledge
of candidates, both in comparison to controls and to soft-money-sponsored issue
advocacy advertising.
Keywords: political influence, political advertising, negative advertising,
attack politics, issue advocacy advertising, campaign finance, soft-money
Influence
of Political Campaign Advertising 3
Impact of Soft-Money-Sponsored Issue Advocacy Advertising
versus Candidate-Sponsored Positive and Negative Advertising:
Influences on Candidate Preferences and Democratic Processes
The question about what to do about the influence of soft money in election
campaigns has heated up following the aborted 1998 debate over campaign finance
reform in the U.S. Senate. Soft money is defined as, "funds...used in Federal as
well as state and local elections, for various grassroots and party building
activities but...not subject to the contributions limitations of the Federal
Election Campaign Act...and the Federal Election Commission (FEC) regulations"
(Levine, 1997, p. 8). Of particular concern is use of soft money by national
political parties and special interest groups for television advertising
designed to influence voters in targeted elections (e.g., Borsuk, 1998; Knight,
1998). Heightened sensitivity to the use of soft money to sponsor television
advertising stemmed from the recent scandal involving the Democratic National
Committee's decision to fund an extensive television advertising campaign during
1995 and 1996 to support the reelection of Clinton-Gore (e.g., Suro, 1998) and
from growing use of soft-money campaign advertising by both political parties
and special interest groups in state and local election campaigns in 1996 and
1998 (Cassata, 1998; Dreyfuss, 1998).
Issue advocacy advertising focuses on issues or, as often the case in election
campaigns, on candidates' positions on the issues. They are differentiated from
express advocacy ads, which call for the election of a particular candidate, and
are subject to campaign finance laws. Issue advocacy advertising enjoys the
protection of the First Amendment and is not subject to standard campaign
finance law restrictions concerning spending limits and disclosure as long as
the ads "stop short of saying 'vote for' or 'vote against' the candidates
mentioned" (Greenblatt, 1998, p. 354). However, "these ads can tread awfully
close to the edge" (p. 354). In recent years, soft-
Influence
of Political Campaign Advertising 4
money-sponsored issue advocacy ads have been used as a way to circumvent
campaign finance laws. While stopping just short of explicitly advocating the
election or defeat of a candidate, "groups engaging in issue advocacy ran
advertising campaigns lambasting a particular candidate with the clear and
unambiguous intention of affecting the outcome of an election" (Dreyfuss, 1998,
p. 32).
The role of soft money in election campaigns, especially its use for so-called
issue advocacy ads, and its potential impact on the electoral system, is now a
defining public policy issue which has sparked debate at the state and national
level and is likely to be a serious topic of discussion in the 2000 presidential
race (Cooper, 1998). The soft-money loophole in campaign finance laws produced a
trickle of funds in the 1980s, which grew to floodgate proportions by the late
1990s. In 1996, Democratic and Republican parties received about $250-million in
soft-money contributions (Dreyfuss, 1998). The reform group, Common Cause,
estimates that soft-money contributions will approach $750-million in the 2000
election cycle (Drinkard, 1998).
A significant proportion of soft-money contributions during election years is
spent on issue advocacy advertising, which bears a striking resemblance to
candidate campaign commercials (Mayers, 1998). During 1996, major political
parties and special interest groups spent more than $150-million on issue
advocacy advertising (Brubaker, 1998), about $78-million by parties, and
$72-million by various issue advocacy groups through their political action
committees (PACs). The latter are particularly sinister since the campaigns
often last longer than a typical election cycle, and a number of groups have
established media plans that provide for a nearly continuous flow of funding for
paid media advertising (Tedesco, 1998, p. 11).
By 1998, in many Senate and House campaigns, spending on issue advocacy
advertising approached the levels spent for paid advertising by candidates
themselves (Hurt, 1999; Mayers,
Influence
of Political Campaign Advertising 5
1999). Moreover, spending for issue advocacy advertising is projected to
increase, barring new legislation that either restricts spending on these type
of campaigns or seeks to create free air time for candidates (e.g., Magleby &
Nelson, 1990). Don Simon, the general council at Common Cause, characterizes
issue advocacy advertising as "the 800-pound gorilla of campaign finance...
that threatens to overwhelm all regulation on money in politics because it
provides an avenue for complete evasion of the rules" (in Dreyfuss, 1998, p.
31).
Several scholars have studied the role and/or influence of spending by
national political organizations (Dwyre, 1996) and special interest groups
(Gaddie, 1995) in election campaigns. Also, considerable attention has been
paid to the influence of special interest group money on pending legislation
(Podhorzer, 1995). In contrast, surprisingly little attention has been paid to
the question of the direct influence of soft money on the electorate. Indeed,
the influence of issue advocacy advertising has been nearly ignored by academics
(Fox, 1986).
The limited research about the influence of issue advocacy advertising has
dealt mainly with the issue of its direct effects on attitudes, particularly in
corporate campaigns. Results of this research are mixed. Some studies suggest
that the effects of issue advocacy campaigns have been exaggerated (Adkins,
1978; Astor, 1976; Crable & Vibert, 1982; Sethi, 1977), especially those in a
political context (Brubaker, 1998), whereas other studies reveal that issue
advocacy advertising campaigns exert a relatively strong impact on people's
short-term recall (Cappella & Jamieson, 1997), protect people's attitudes
against change (Burgoon, Pfau, & Birk, 1995), or alter people's attitudes
(Cappella & Jamieson, 1997). Reid, Soley, and Vanden Bergh summarized knowledge
about corporate advocacy advertising in 1981, observing that, "little is known
about...actual effects" (p. 310) and, in the face of the growing use of issue
advocacy advertising in political campaigns since 1996, even less is known today
about the effects of issue advocacy advertising
Influence
of Political Campaign Advertising 6
on voter decision making. Only one previous study has addressed this question.
Garramone (1985) compared candidate and PAC sponsorship of negative
advertisements employed in a Montana U. S. Senate campaign on Michigan State
undergraduate attitudes, finding that PAC sponsorship exerted greater influence
against the targeted candidate with reduced backlash effects against the
sponsor. However, no research has examined the effects of issue advocacy
advertising on outcomes relevant to the health and viability of the democratic
process.
The purpose of this investigation is to enrich the debate about campaign
finance reform by assessing the relative impact of televised issue advocacy
advertising in U.S. Senate and House campaigns as to their influence on
viewers': attitudes toward candidates; awareness, knowledge, and interest in
campaigns; and likelihood of voting in the election. The study featured actual
television ads which were employed in three campaigns in the viewers' ADI,
comparing the influence of candidate-sponsored positive and negative ads and
soft-money-sponsored issue advocacy ads versus a nonviewing control condition,
on behalf of opposing candidates in two House and one Senate campaign during the
1998 elections.
Hypotheses
Although the central question posed in this investigation concerns the
influence of televised issue advocacy ads in House and Senate campaigns, this
issue can't be addressed in a vacuum. Hence, this study compared
soft-money-sponsored issue advocacy advertisements to traditional
candidate-sponsored positive and negative advertisements, both with regard to
their influence on viewer attitudes toward candidates and their effect on
matters intrinsic to democratic processes, such as awareness, knowledge,
interest, and participation. In all instances, the study sought to compare the
impact of issue advocacy advertisements versus the influence of more traditional
candidate-sponsored advertising. This investigation assumed that issue advocacy
Influence
of Political Campaign Advertising 7
advertising functions much like candidate-sponsored negative ads, despite the
fact that issue advocacy ads don't explicitly call for the election or defeat of
specific candidates.
Candidate Preference
We start by comparing the influence of candidate-sponsored positive and
negative advertisements. The study conceptualizes negative advertisements,
sometimes called attack ads, as making "strategic use of...anti-rival
statements...to weaken support for ...the targeted rival" (Haynes & Rhine, 1998,
p. 693). Negative ads concentrate mainly on the opponent, rendering a
comparative judgment toward the end of the message (Pfau & Kenski, 1990, p. 2).
They stand in stark contrast to positive ads, which promote the positive
attributes of the sponsoring candidate, ignoring the opponent altogether, and
they differ from comparative ads, which simply compare the records or positions
of two candidates to the advantage of the sponsoring candidate (Salmore &
Salmore, 1985). Issue advocacy advertisements employed during election campaigns
resemble candidate-sponsored negative ads. They focus exclusively on one
candidate, typically attacking the candidate's position on a specific issue and,
in the process, "painting a dark...picture of the candidate based on that one
position" (Greenblatt, 1998, p. 354). They stop short of urging a vote against a
candidate, but after "lambasting a particular candidate," issue advocacy
advertisements communicate an implicit, but nonetheless, "clear and unambiguous"
message, that viewers ought to vote against the targeted candidate (Dreyfuss,
1998, p. 32; Preston, 1999).
Candidate-sponsored negative ads are thought to be more persuasive than
positive ads. First, negative ads are influential because they are more likely
to be noticed and processed. This position is explained by the theoretical
construct of negativity, with its origins in the information processing
literature. It maintains that negative information stands out and, therefore, is
much more likely to be noticed and processed (Anderson, 1974; Fiske, 1980;
Hamilton & Huffman,
Influence
of Political Campaign Advertising 8
1971; Hodges, 1974; Jordan, 1965; Levin & Schmidt, 1969; Miller & Rowe, 1967;
Warr & Jackson, 1976; Wyer, 1970). As Fiske (1980) notes, "negative cues stand
out [and are more informative] by virtue of being rare" (p. 904). Kellermann's
(1984) synthesis of the negativity literature provides support for the
negativity construct. She concludes that negative information "is weighted more
heavily than positive information in the initial formation of impressions, [and
it] exhibits a greater capacity to alter existing impressions" (pp. 37-38).
In the context of advertising, studies reveal that negative messages provide
superior recall, which is true for political advertisements (Shapiro & Rieger,
1989), public service campaign messages (Reeves, Newhagen, Maibach, Basil, &
Kurtz, 1989), and commercial ads (Lang, 1989; Lang & Friestad, 1987; Reeves et
al., 1989; Thorson & Friestad, 1985). Because negative information is noticed,
processed deeply, and remembered, it exerts more impact in political impression.
Kernall (1977) finds that, "negative opinions exert disproportionate influence
in political behavior" (p. 51), and Lau's (1982, 1985) research reveals that
negative information about candidates exerts more influence, both in initial
formation and maintenance
of impressions about political candidates, because it "stands out against a
general positive background" (1982, p. 366).
However, even though negative political ads command greater attention and are
processed more deeply, people say they dislike them, and some academic research
suggests that they can boomerang against sponsors (Basil, Schooler, & Reeves,
1991; Garramone, 1984, 1985; Garramone, Atkin, Pinkleton, & Cole, 1990; Merritt,
1984; Roddy & Garramone, 1988; Shapiro & Rieger, 1989, 1992; Stewart, 1975;
Swinyard, 1981). The issue of whether negative political advertisements trigger
voter backlash has been a point of contention in the academic literature. A
number of studies failed to detect a boomerang effect (Copeland &
Johnson-Cartee, 1990;
Influence
of Political Campaign Advertising 9
Johnson-Cartee & Copeland, 1991; Kaid & Boydston, 1987; Newhagen & Reeves, 1991;
Pfau & Burgoon, 1989; Pinkleton, 1998; Weigold, 1992).
One explanation for the contradictory backlash findings is based on expectancy
theory. Expectancy theory (Burgoon & Miller, 1985) posits that positive source
credibility ratings function as a precondition for the use of intense and
opinionated messages (Burgoon & Chase, 1973; Burgoon & Miller, 1985; Miller &
Lobe, 1967). Whereas more credible sources can employ either positive or
negative appeals, less credible sources are restricted to positive appeals.
When less credible sources employ harsh and strident appeals, they usually
trigger a negative violation of expectations, resulting in backlash (Burgoon &
Miller, 1985).
This is particularly relevant for studies finding a backlash response to
negative political ads since, in most instances, the manipulations used in these
studies featured relatively unknown candidates, who lacked a base of initial
credibility. For example, Basil, Schooler, and Reeves (1991) administered attack
ads in behalf of candidates in North Dakota and Louisiana Senate campaigns to
residents of Palo Alto, California; Garramone (1985) administered attacks on
behalf of Montana Senate candidates to Michigan State University undergraduate
students; the Stewart (1975), Roddy and Garramone (1988), Garramone et al.
(1990), and Shapiro and Rieger (1992) studies employed fictitious candidates
and messages; and Merritt (1984) examined candidate attack messages in a low
visibility California State Assembly campaign. When a completely unknown source
attacks an opponent, it would be anticipated that, absent any other information,
people would think less of the source. In short, the problem with studies
finding a boomerang effect is a fundamental question of validity. In most "real"
campaigns for the House, Senate, or the Presidency, the candidates are known
entities, and attack ads are processed by viewers using established schemas of
both source and target. Ansolabehere and Iyengar (1996)
Influence
of Political Campaign Advertising 10
characterize candidate credibility as "a separate dimension of advertising
content" (p. 111), maintaining that it plays an important role in determining
the persuasiveness of candidate advertising.
While there is little dispute that people dislike negative political ads, the
overwhelming preponderance of evidence from practitioners and academics
indicates that they work most of the time, in spite of the public's stated
distaste for this approach (Ansolabehere & Iyengar, 1995; Armstrong, 1988;
Axelrod, 1988; Barrett, 1988; Colford, 1988; Ehrenhalt, 1985; Guskind &
Hagstrom, 1988; Hickey, 1986; Johnson-Cartee & Copeland, 1989, 1991; Kaid &
Boydston, 1987; Kern, 1989; Kern & Just, 1995; Lang, 1991; Louden, 1987; Mann &
Ornstein, 1983; Martinez & DeLegal, 1988; Moyers, 1984; Newhagen & Reeves, 1991;
Nugent, 1987; Pfau & Burgoon, 1989; Pfau & Kenski, 1990; Pinkleton, 1998;
Sabato, 1981, 1983; Schneider, 1988; Surlin & Gordon, 1977; Tarrance, 1980;
Taylor, 1986; Tinkham & Weaver-Lariscy, 1993). Findings by Ansolabehere and
Iyengar (1995), based on the results of a series of experiments conducted in
California, indicate that, "small doses of [negative] campaign advertising are
sufficient to influence voters' preferences" (p. 13).
The increasing use of televised negative ads in contemporary campaigns casts
doubt on the position that they often backfire on sponsors. Johnson-Cartee and
Copeland (1997) observe that, "Since the early 1980s, negative advertising has
become the dominant strategy for most campaigns for high-visibility offices in
the United States" (p. 21). Clearly, political practitioners aren't fools, and
Newhagen and Reeves (1991) observe that, "If negative advertising does not work,
its increasing use across the American political landscape would be difficult to
explain" (p. 197). Indeed, today's practitioners "have discovered [that] it
almost always pays to attack the opponent on television" (Taylor, 1986).
Influence
of Political Campaign Advertising 11
The second explanation for the influence of negative ads, even in the face of
voter disdain, is the theoretical construct of differential decay. Differential
decay is a slightly different take on disassociation, which was the focus of
attention in early persuasion research (Hovland, Janis, & Kelley, 1953). While
disassociation postulates the separation of new information from its origins in
time, differential decay posits that, discounting cues, such as message source,
tend to deteriorate more rapidly than message cues (Pfau, Parrott, & Lindquist,
1992). Whereas research failed to confirm disassociation, it has supported the
construct of differential decay (Kaid & Sanders, 1978; Moore & Hutchinson, 1985;
Newhagen & Reeves, 1991; Pratkanis & Greenwald, 1985). Newhagen and Reeves
explain: "'Liking' may be forgotten while information is not," making negative
political ads an on-balance "good bet" (p. 215). Practitioners clearly support
this view. Melman (in Guskind & Hagstrom, 1988) observes: "When we ask people
about negative ads they'll say they don't like them..., [however] the point is
that they absorb the information" (p. 2787). Mullins (cited in Devlin, 1989)
adds: "Everybody hates negative ads; then they rate them most effective in terms
of decisionmaking. There isn't any long-term effect" (p. 407).
The argument is not that candidate-sponsored positive ads aren't effective. The
available research suggests that positive political advertising often provides
useful information about candidates, thus enabling ads to overcome partisan
selectivity (Chaffee & McLeod, 1973), and that it exerts sizable influence on
general election voters (Ansolabehere & Iyengar, 1995; Atkin, Bowen, Nayman, &
Sheinkopf, 1973; Atkin & Heald, 1976; Hofstetter & Buss, 1980; Joslyn, 1981;
Patterson & McClure, 1976). Rather, the argument is that, because
candidate-sponsored negative ads are more likely to be noticed and processed,
and because they are insulated from
Influence
of Political Campaign Advertising 12
backlash effects due to differential decay, they are even more effective than
positive ads. Thus, it is predicted:
H1: Candidate-sponsored negative political advertisements exert greater
influence on attitudes about candidates than candidate-sponsored positive
advertisements.
This investigation posits that issue advocacy advertisements employed during
election campaigns resemble candidate-sponsored negative ads (Dreyfuss, 1998;
Greenblatt, 1998; Mayers, 1998) and, therefore, also exert greater influence on
attitudes than candidate-sponsored positive ads. Because issue advocacy ads use
an attack approach, they should also be noticed and processed more deeply than
candidate-sponsored positive advertisements.
In addition, differential decay is rendered moot. Advocacy ads are not
sponsored by candidates. Hence, even if viewers find an advocacy ad distasteful,
there are no consequences for candidates who are implicitly supported. This is
the most insidious feature of advocacy ads employed in political campaigns. The
claims made may be false or misleading, but since neither candidate sponsored
the message, viewers can't hold candidates accountable. This rationale is
supported by the results of the only study comparing candidate-sponsored and
PAC-sponsored negative ads, which found that independent sponsorship militated
backlash effects (Garramone, 1985).
Furthermore, the target of an advocacy ad is left completely defenseless.
Clearly, "the best available defense" against false or misleading claims in
candidate-sponsored negative advertising is "the vigilance of the opposing
candidate and party" (Jamieson, 1988, p. C2), coupled with close scrutiny of the
news media. Targeted candidates can call attention to the inappropriate nature
of the opponent's message, offering direct rebuttal to the ad's claims. Further,
the news media, through adwatches, can provide refutation of unwarranted claims.
In
Influence
of Political Campaign Advertising 13
these ways, abuses in candidate-sponsored negative advertising are somewhat
self-correcting, since unfair attacks can be turned against sponsors (Franzen,
1995). However, these policing mechanisms, though limited in their effectiveness
(Pfau & Kenski, 1990), are not available with advocacy ads. Candidates or the
news media can refute the claims advanced in an advocacy ad, but there is no
political cost to sponsors. Indeed, even if the targeted candidate is completely
successful in rebutting the ad's claims, the candidate is been forced to expend
considerable energy and resources "to talk about things they don't want to talk
about" (Greenblatt, 1998, p. 355) at absolutely no cost to the opposing
candidate, who simply denies responsibility for the offending ad.
This study predicts that soft-money-sponsored issue advocacy advertisements are
more effective than either candidate-sponsored positive or negative ads, and
posits a research question dealing with viewer awareness of the sponsorship of
issue advocacy ads.
H2: Soft-money-sponsored issue advocacy advertisements in political campaigns
exert greater influence on attitudes about candidates than either
candidate-sponsored positive or negative ads.
RQ1: To what degree are viewers aware of the sponsorship of issue advocacy
advertisements aired during political campaigns?
Ever since Campbell, Gurin, and Miller (1954) and Campbell, Converse, and
Stokes (1960) posited the psychological theory of voting behavior in two studies
in the 1950s, political scientists have stressed the importance of political
party cues in political cognition. Although research indicates a weakening of
political party cues in voting in recent decades (Abramson, 1983; Axelrod, 1972,
1974, 1978, 1982, 1986; Beck, 1988; Mann & Wolfinger, 1984; Norpoth, 1987;
Petrocik, 1980, 1987; Stanley, Bianco, & Niemi, 1986; Wattenberg, 1986),
manifested by
Influence
of Political Campaign Advertising 14
growth in nonaffiliated ranks and increasing crossover voting, partisan cues
continue to be a reliable predictor of voting disposition (Abramson, 1983;
Abramson, Aldrich, & Rohde, 1983; Kenski & Lockwood, 1988; Keith, 1992; Marcus &
Converse, 1984; Stanga & Sheffield, 1987; Shively, 1980; Whiteley, 1988).
Partisans are more inclined toward selective perception of campaign
communication and, as a result, are less susceptible to political influence in
all circumstances (Atkin, 1971; Blumler & McQuail, 1969; Chaffee & Choe, 1980;
Donahue, 1973; King, 1977; Sherrod, 1971; Shively, 1980; Swinyard & Coney, 1978;
Weisberg & Rusk, 1970). However, even strong partisans can be swayed by
political advertising. Ansolabehere and Iyengar's (1995) field experiments
revealed that exposure to even a single campaign spot positively affected
sponsors, producing a 14-point boost among viewers of the same party as the
sponsor, a 5-point gain for viewers of the opposite party as the sponsor, and a
3-point shift in nonpartisan viewers. Their research also revealed differences
in the way that Democratic and Republican partisans and nonpartisans responded
to negative ads. Their results indicated that while "independents and
Republicans are very receptive to attacks, ...Democrats tend to prefer positive
messages" (1995, p. 92). In addition, Garramone (1985) reported that
nonpartisans were more susceptible than Republican identifiers to the influence
of candidate-sponsored negative ads. This study posits an interaction of
advertising approach and political party identification such that:
H3: The advantage of candidate-sponsored negative and soft-money-sponsored
issue advocacy advertisements over positive ads is most pronounced among
Republican and nonpartisan viewers as compared to Democratic viewers.
Influence
of Political Campaign Advertising 15
Democratic Process
Finally, this investigation examines potential influences of
candidate-sponsored positive and negative ads and issue advocacy ads on matters
intrinsic to the democratic process, including people's awareness of, interest
in, and knowledge of campaigns and candidates, and likelihood of voting.
Television spot advertising has become the principle communication vehicle in
more visible contemporary political campaigns (Kamber, 1997; Kern, 1989; Pfau &
Kenski, 1990). Owen (1991) terms television spot advertising as "integral" to
political campaigns (p. 25); Ansolabehere and Iyengar (1995) characterize it as
"the essential tool in the battle for public opinion" (p. 3). The critical issue
addressed in this section concerns potential consequences to democratic
processes of candidate-sponsored positive and negative advertising and
soft-money-sponsored issue advocacy advertising. Campaign practices "matter to
the practice of democracy" (Geer & Lau, 1998, p. 1), not just because they
impact electoral choice that "affects the course of government" (p. 1), but also
because they leave an indelible imprint, for the better or worse, on the process
of democracy.
Traditional candidate-sponsored advertising, both positive and negative,
contributes to people's awareness and knowledge of candidates and issues. First
generation research on the effects of campaign advertising revealed that
exposure to advertisements is positively associated with learning about the
candidates and their positions on the issues (Atkin, 1973; Atkin & Heald, 1976;
Garramone, 1983, 1984; Hofstetter, Zukin, & Bus, 1978; Kaid & Sanders, 1978;
Patterson & McClure, 1974, 1976).
Subsequent research compared positive and negative message approaches. Most
studies revealed that negative political ads are superior in fostering recall
of message content (Bowen, 1994; Finkel & Geer, 1998; Garramone et al., 1990;
Shapiro & Rieger, 1989), especially
Influence
of Political Campaign Advertising 16
affective content (Lang, 1991; Lang & Lanfear, 1990). However, Ansolabehere and
Iyengar indicated that exposure to a single political ad increased learning
about issues by 5%, with positive and negative ads producing comparable
information gains. Studies also reveal that negative advertisements are more
involving than positive ads (Garramone et al., 1990; Pinkleton, 1998), and that
"involvement motivates information seeking and knowledge gain" (Atkin, 1973;
Chaffee & McLeod, 1973; Pinkleton, 1998, p. 34).
Although no studies have examined the impact of soft-money-sponsored issue
advocacy advertisements on viewer awareness or knowledge, it is assumed that,
like candidate-sponsored positive and negative ads, they should foster awareness
and knowledge but, since they resemble candidate-sponsored negative ads in using
an attack approach, they should prove superior to positive ads in enhancing
awareness and knowledge. This study predicts:
H4: Compared to candidate-sponsored positive ads, both candidate-sponsored
negative advertisements and soft-money-sponsored issue advocacy ads are
perceived by viewers as fostering greater awareness of campaigns and knowledge
of the candidates.
The issue of the influence of candidate-sponsored positive and negative
advertising on voter interest and participation has been a point of contention
among scholars. As noted previously, voters express unequivocal disdain for
negative political ads (Garramone, 1984; Johnson-Cartee & Copeland, 1989, 1991;
Merritt, 1984; Steward, 1975; Surlin & Gordon, 1977). The still unresolved
question is whether people's attitudes toward negative ads result in reduced
interest and participation in politics.
Ansolabehere and Iyengar (1995) launched the first salvo in this renewed
debate. The combined results of 1992 national election data and California
experimental data indicated that
Influence
of Political Campaign Advertising 17
negative advertising reduces turnout about 4.5%. However, the effect on turnout
was the most pronounced among nonpartisans. Exposure to one negative
advertisement reduced the intention to vote among Democrats and Republicans by
3% each, but it slashed intention to vote among nonpartisans by 11%.
Ansolabehere and Iyengar conclude: "In the long run, negative campaigns
contribute to the general antipathy toward politicians and parties and the high
rates of disapproval and distrust of political institutions" (1995, p. 112).
Other research supports the position that negative political ads suppress
voting turnout. Copeland and Johnson-Cartee (1990) reported an inverse
relationship between acceptance of negative appeals and participation among
southeastern U. S. voters. Other studies featuring 1990 National Election Study
(NES) Senate campaign data also indicate that negative campaigning reduces
turnout. Kahn and Kenney (1998) reported that, in those campaigns characterized
as "harsh and uncivil," turnout falls, especially on the part of non-partisans"
(p. 27), and Ragsdale and Rusk's (1995) probit analysis revealed that voter
interest and knowledge enhanced turnout, but that negative campaign messages, in
some instances, dampened turnout. Kern and Just (1995) characterize the
relationship between the growth of negative campaigns and declining turnout as
circular. They reason that, "Negative ads are believed because politicians are
distrusted, and politicians are increasingly distrusted by people who believe
negative ads." As a result, "people want to withdraw altogether from the
political process" (p. 142).
However, other research disputes this position. Two early studies indicated
that negative messages do not affect turnout. Cover (1986) found no effect on
turnout, and Garramone and colleagues (1990) reported no effect on either
attention to the campaign or intention to vote. Two recent longitudinal analyses
concur. Finkel and Geer (1998) challenged the position advanced by Ansolabehere
and Iyengar. They argue that negative campaigns can stimulate turnout among
Influence
of Political Campaign Advertising 18
some groups, enhancing knowledge of the campaign, increasing involvement, and
strengthening partisan ties. Their study of presidential campaign advertising
from 1960 to 1992 concluded that attack advertising doesn't impact turnout
overall or among independents. In addition, Geer and Lau's (1998) examination of
aggregate data in presidential elections, coupled with quadrennial NES surveys,
during the period of 1960 to 1996 found overall quantity of campaign
advertising, and the amount of negative advertising in particular, were both
associated with greater turnout. They conclude: "In both sets of data and across
nearly all campaign strategies, the results suggest that attack ads, if
anything, stimulate turnout" (1998, p. 14). Finally, a recent meta-analysis by
Lau, Sigelman, Heldman, and Babbitt (in press) found that, with those studies
which met their criteria for inclusion, positive and negative effects of
negative advertising on voter participation canceled each other out. They
concluded: "...we uncovered little evidence to warrant the fears of those who
believe that electoral participation is imperiled by the increasingly widespread
use of negative political advertisements" (p. 14).
Despite the conflicting findings, this investigation tests the position of
Ansolabehere and Iyengar that candidate-sponsored negative advertising
suppresses interest in campaigns and voting intention, and the position
initially posited, but not supported, by Garramone (1985) that
soft-money-sponsored issue advocacy ads dampen interest and voting intention.
Thus, it is predicted that:
H5: Compared to candidate-sponsored positive ads, both candidate-sponsored
negative advertisements and soft-money-sponsored issue advocacy ads are
perceived by viewers as dampening interest in campaigns and suppressing
likelihood of voting.
Influence
of Political Campaign Advertising 19
Method
This investigation compared the impact of televised issue advocacy
advertisements and candidate-sponsored positive and negative ads on viewers'
attitudes about candidates; awareness, knowledge, and interest in campaigns; and
likelihood of voting in the election. The investigation was conducted during the
final week of the 1998 election campaign. It featured Democratic and Republican
candidates in two House campaigns and one Senate campaign. The study featured
actual television advertisements employed in three campaigns in the viewers'
ADI.
Participants
Participants were 311 prospective voters who were students in introductory
journalism and communication courses at a large Midwestern university. They were
told they were taking part in a study about television viewing.
Design and Independent Variables
The investigation employed a 4 (experimental condition) by 3 (political party
affiliation) factorial design. The participants were assigned to one of 11
viewing conditions. In groups that ranged in size from 26 to 48, participants
viewed one hour of television. Participants viewed two programs, "Home
Improvement" and "Wheel of Fortune," station breaks on the hour and half hour,
plus a total of 28 advertisements (eight ads each at the outset of the hour and
at the half hour; and four ads each at the quarter hour, three-quarter hour, and
at the end of the hour). Those participants assigned to treatment conditions
viewed 12 political ads (four each at the outset of the hour; and two each at
the quarter hour and three-quarter hour) and 16 commercial ads, whereas those
asigned as controls viewed 28 commercial ads. All commercial and political ads
were 30-seconds in length. Political ads were selected from the pool of
candidate-sponsored and
Influence
of Political Campaign Advertising 20
soft-money-sponsored political ads that aired on NBC affiliate, WKOW, during the
1998 general election campaign.
Experimental condition was operationalized in the study as: candidate-sponsored
positive, candidate-sponsored negative, soft-money-sponsored negative, and
control (no political ads). All of the candidate-sponsored positive ads featured
reasons to support the candidate, making no reference to the opponent. By
contrast, all candidate-sponsored negative ads contained what Haynes and Rhine
(1998, p. 693) term "anti-rival statements." The negative as focused mainly on
the opponent, attacking their qualifications or issue positions, while rendering
a comparative judgment toward the end of the message (Pfau & Kenski, 1990). All
soft-money-sponsored issue advocacy ads focused exclusively on one candidate,
attacking that candidate's position on a specific issue. Although they stopped
short of urging viewers to vote against the candidate, the issue advocacy ads
used in the study communicated an implicit, but "clear and unambiguous" message,
that viewers should vote against the targeted candidate (Dreyfuss, 1998, p. 32).
Issue advocacy ads were either sponsored by one of the two political parties or
by PACs. As indicated previously, those participants assigned as controls viewed
one-hour of television, but were not exposed to any political advertising.
Political party affiliation was operationalized in terms of participants'
self-reported identification with the Democratic or Republican parties, or as
unaffiliated with either of the two major political parties.
Procedures
The study was conducted in two phases. During Phase 1, the participants
completed a questionnaire designed to provide basic demographic information and
assess political party affiliation. Following Phase 1, researchers analyzed the
preliminary data and, based on the
Influence
of Political Campaign Advertising 21
results, assigned participants to conditions. Participants were assigned to one
of 11 viewing sessions. Each of the viewing sessions reflected comparable ratios
of Democratic, Republican, and nonaffiliated viewers.
Once subjects were assigned to viewing sessions, sessions were randomly
assigned to experimental conditions. Two of the 11 conditions involved controls.
Of the nine treatment conditions, three featured only Democratic candidates,
three included only Republican candidates, and three featured ads on behalf of
both Democratic and Republican candidates. The separate and combined candidate
conditions were designed to also test the effects of competitive clutter.
However, subsequent results indicated no differences between the separate and
combined conditions. Thus, for analyses reported in this paper, viewing
conditions were collapsed so as to produce three groups of participants, who
viewed candidate-sponsored positive ads, candidate-sponsored negative ads, or
soft-money-sponsored issue advocacy ads.
Phase 2 commenced one week following Phase 1 and continued for four days. One
of the two control sessions was scheduled for the first day of the study and the
other for the last session of the last day of the study in order to detect any
potential confounds resulting from campaign events once the study commenced.
Results of a one-way MANOVA featuring the two control groups indicated no
significant differences involving dependent variables, therefore ruling out
contamination.
During Phase 2, participants reported at assigned times to the viewing room to
watch one hour of television. Following the viewing, participants completed a
questionnaire which assessed their attitudes toward each of the candidates in
the three races; awareness and interest in the campaigns; knowledge of the
candidates; likelihood of voting in the election; and awareness of the sponsors
of the ads they had viewed.
Influence
of Political Campaign Advertising 22
Dependent Measures
All multiple item scales employed in the investigation were evaluated for their
internal consistency using Cronbach's (1951) coefficient alpha. Description,
justification, and reliabilities for instruments are included below.
Participants' attitudes toward the candidates was assessed using three
measures. Global attitude toward each candidate was measured using six bi-polar
adjective pairs that were developed by Burgoon, Cohen, Miller, and Montgomery
(1978). These attitude scales have attained excellent reliabilities in past
political communication research. The adjective opposite pairs included:
unacceptable/acceptable, foolish/wise, and negative/positive, wrong/right,
unfavorable/favorable, and bad/good. The alpha reliability of the attitude scale
was .87.
Perceptions of the competence and character of candidates was assessed using
bi-polar adjective opposite scales developed in prior factor analytic research
by McCroskey and colleagues (McCroskey, Holdridge, & Toomb, 1974; McCroskey &
Jenson, 1973). The scales have been used extensively in past research (Rubin,
Palmgreen, & Sypher, 1994), including studies of perceptions of political
candidates (e.g., Pfau & Burgoon, 1988; Pfau et al., 1993, 1995,1997). Items
used to assess perceptions of competence were unintelligent/intelligent,
incompetent/competent, and unqualified/qualified; and for character were
dishonest/honest, bad/good, and selfish/unselfish. The alpha reliabilities of
the two measures were .90 and .79, respectively.
A number of items were designed to assess criteria relevant to democratic
processes. These included measures of participants' awareness and interest in
the campaigns, knowledge of candidates, and likelihood of voting in the
election.
Influence
of Political Campaign Advertising 23
Awareness, knowledge, and interest in the campaigns were assessed using
bi-polar adjective opposite scales developed in past research by Fiske, Lau, and
Smith (1990) and Price and Zaller (1993). Items included: How much awareness do
you have of the (candidates' names) campaign for the (specific office) from
(name of state)? How interested are you in (candidates' names) campaign for the
(office) from (state)? How knowledgeable are you about the candidates in the
(candidates' names) campaign for the (office) from (state)? While
operationalizations of awareness and knowledge, in particular, often feature
objective measures, more recent studies using subjective measures suggests that
"self-report" items can provide valid and meaningful indicators (Mondak, 1996).
The awareness, interest, and knowledge items were summed across campaigns.
Reliabilities were: awareness, .84; interest, .84; and knowledge, .81.
Likelihood of voting in the election was assessed using a single-item 0-100
scale based on the question: On a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents "no
probability" and 100 indicates "certain probability," what is the likelihood you
will go to the polls and vote on November 3?
Finally, two measures sought to assess viewers perceptions of the ads viewed.
Awareness of the sponsorship of the ads was assessed using an open-ended measure
for each candidate worded as follows: Who is the sponsor of the political ads
you've seen which either explicitly or implicitly support (candidate's name)?
Individual participants saw ads sponsored by candidates' campaigns, sponsored by
third parties, or viewed no political ads. Researchers coded responses as either
correct or incorrect.
Results
Statistical Analyses
A 4 (candidate-sponsored positive ads, candidate-sponsored negative ads,
soft-money- sponsored issue advocacy ads, control) by 3 (Democratic, Republican,
or unaffiliated political
Influence
of Political Campaign Advertising 24
party identification) factorial multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was
computed on all dependent variables as the first step in assessing the
predictions and research questions. All
significant omnibus effects were followed by univariate tests and, if
significant, by assessment of the pattern of means using Scheffe post hoc
tests.
Omnibus Results
The omnibus MANOVA revealed main effects for experimental condition, F(21, 794)
= 1.95, p < .01, eta2 = .06, political party affiliation, F(14, 552) = 1.70, p <
.05, eta2 = .05, as well as an interaction involving experimental condition and
political party affiliation, F(42, 1298) = 1.40, p < .05, eta2 = .04. Univariate
tests involving the interaction revealed effects for all of the candidate
preference measures--attitude, F(6, 282) = 2.63, p < .05, eta2 = .05;
competence, F(6, 282) = 2.53, p < .05, eta2 = .05; and character, F(6, 282) =
2.68, p < .05, eta2 = .06--but not for any of the democratic process measures.
These interaction effects will be examined shortly. In contrast to the
interaction findings, the subsequent univariate tests for the main effect
finding for experimental condition were significant on the democratic process
measures of awareness, F(3, 282) = 2.86, p < .05, eta2 = .03, interest, F(3,
282) = 2.68, p < .05, eta2 = .03, and knowledge F(3, 282) = 4.79, p < .01, eta2
= .05. Univariate tests for the main effect finding of party affiliation were
significant only on the democratic process measure of likelihood of voting, F(2,
282) = 2.94, p < .05, eta2 = .02. The main effect findings for democratic
processes will be examined following the section on candidate preference.
Candidate Preference
Hypothesis 1 predicted that candidate-sponsored negative ads exert greater
influence on viewers' attitudes about candidates than candidate-sponsored
positive ads, while Hypothesis 2 posited that soft-money-sponsored issue
advocacy ads exert more influence than either candidate-
Influence
of Political Campaign Advertising 25
sponsored positive or negative ads. Because the results revealed no main effects
for experimental condition on any candidate preference measures, these
predictions were not supported.
Research Question 1 asked, to what degree are viewers aware of the sponsorship
of issue advocacy advertisements aired during political campaigns. The responses
to the open-ended questions regarding sponsorship suggest considerable lack of
awareness. Of the 91 participants who viewed issue advocacy ads, 29% correctly
attributed their sponsorship, 21% incorrectly attributed them as
candidate-sponsored, and 50% indicated that they didn't know who the sponsor
was. In addition, 12% of 155 participants who viewed candidate-sponsored
positive or negative ads attributed them to soft-money sponsors, in nearly all
cases, to political parties.
It appears that there is limited awareness of the sponsorship of
soft-money-sponsored issue advocacy ads and, among those who make attributions,
there is confusion about sponsorship, particularly the tendency to attribute
sponsorship of issue advocacy ads to candidates.
Hypothesis 3 posited an interaction involving experimental condition and
political party affiliation such that the advantage of candidate-sponsored
negative and soft-money-sponsored issue advocacy ads over candidate-sponsored
positive ads would be most pronounced among Republican and nonpartisan viewers.
The results provided qualified support for this prediction.
The significant univariate results on participants' overall attitude toward,
and their perception of competence and character of, sponsor candidates were
followed up with post-hoc analyses. As Table 1 reveals, none of the advertising
approaches exerted significant influence on Democratic viewers. Republican
viewers, by contrast, were significantly influenced by candidate-sponsored
negative advertisements. Compared to controls, Republican viewers manifested
more positive overall attitudes toward sponsors (t = 2.18, p < .05), and more
positive perceptions of the competence (t = 1.88, p < .05) and character (t =
1.91, p < .05) of negative advertising sponsors.
Influence
of Political Campaign Advertising 26
Republicans were unaffected by soft-money-sponsored issue advocacy ads. The only
influence of positive advertisements on Republican identifiers was to enhance
their perception of the character of sponsors (t = 2.00, p < .05). Despite
overall effectiveness of candidate-sponsored negative ads among Republicans,
direct tests of candidate-sponsored negative and positive ads across dependent
variables revealed no significant differences.
The pattern of results among unaffiliated viewers was quite different. The
candidate-sponsored positive ads exerted an influence only on perceptions of
character (t = 2.82, p < .01), whereas candidate-sponsored negative ads only
influenced overall attitude toward sponsors
(t =-1.82, p < .05), producing a backlash effect against sponsors. This was the
only evidence of backlash in the entire study.
Soft-money-sponsored issue advocacy ads, however, positively affected all
dependent measures with unaffiliated viewers. They promoted more positive
overall attitudes toward those candidates who were implicitly supported in the
ads (t = 2.00, p < .05) and elicited more positive perceptions of those
candidates' competence (t = 3.44, p < .01) and character (t = 3.09, p < .01). In
addition, in direct comparison with positive ads, among nonaffiliated viewers
the soft-money-sponsored issue advocacy ads elicited more positive viewer
perceptions of competence on behalf of those candidates implicitly supported in
the ads (t = 2.44, p < .05).
The pattern of the results offers support for the hypothesis that
candidate-sponsored negative and soft-money-sponsored issue advocacy
advertisements exert more influence on Republican and nonpartisan viewers,
respectively. In addition, the results provide further nuance, indicating that
candidate-sponsored negative ads are uniquely effective among Republicans, but
elicit a modest backlash with nonpartisans, while soft-money-sponsored issue
advocacy ads are exclusively influential with unaffiliated viewers.
Influence
of Political Campaign Advertising 27
Democratic Processes
Hypothesis 4 posited that, compared to positive ads, both candidate-sponsored
negative ads and soft-money-sponsored issue advocacy advertisements are
perceived by viewers as fostering greater awareness of the campaigns and
knowledge of candidates. This prediction was not supported. As Table 2
illustrates, the results revealed that candidate-sponsored ads, both positive
and negative, promote both awareness and knowledge. In comparison to controls,
candidate-sponsored positive (t = 3.27, p < .01) and negative (t = 4.40, p <
.01) advertisements enhanced awareness of the campaigns, whereas
soft-money-sponsored issue advocacy ads did not. In addition,
candidate-sponsored positive (t = 4.00, p < .01) and negative (t = 2.87, p <
.05) ads promoted more awareness of the campaigns than issue advocacy ads.
The same pattern of results held for viewers' perceptions of knowledge of the
candidates. Compared to controls, candidate-sponsored positive (t = 4.00, p <
.01) and negative (t = 5.50, p < .01) ads fostered perception of knowledge of
the candidates, but soft-money-sponsored issue advocacy ads did not. In
addition, candidate-sponsored positive (t = 4.29, p < .01) and negative (t =
2.79, p < .05) advertisements contributed more to perceptions of knowledge of
candidates than issue advocacy ads.
Hypothesis 5 predicted that, compared to positive ads, both candidate-sponsored
negative ads and soft-money-sponsored issue advocacy ads are perceived by
viewers as dampening interest in campaigns and suppressing likelihood of voting.
This prediction was not supported.
Contrary to prediction, candidate-sponsored political ads enhanced viewers'
interest in campaigns. Compared to controls who viewed no political ads,
participants who viewed both positive (t = 2.38, p < .05) and negative (t =
4.42, p < .01) advertisements expressed greater interest in the campaigns. In
addition, those who viewed candidate-sponsored negative ads
Influence
of Political Campaign Advertising 28
demonstrated greater interest than participants who watched soft-money-sponsored
issue advocacy ads (t = 2.99, p < .01).
Results on likelihood of voting were generally weak. There was no main effect
for experimental condition. The pattern of means illustrated in Table 2 suggests
that, of all the advertising approaches, only the mean involving
candidate-sponsored positive advertising stands out, enhancing participation in
comparison to controls. However, post-hoc analysis reveals that the difference
in these means merely approached significance (t = 1.88, p < .10). Followup
tests to the main effect for party identification on likelihood of voting
produced transparent results. Subsequent post-hoc analyses indicated simply that
party identification, whether Democratic (t = 3.32, p < .01) or Republican (t =
2.19, p < .05), was associated with an increased likelihood of voting, as
compared to nonaffiliation.
Discussion
This investigation attempted to assess the influence of soft-money-sponsored
issue advocacy ads in U. S. House and Senate campaigns, by comparing the effects
of issue advocacy advertising as opposed to candidate-sponsored positive and
negative ads on both viewer attitudes toward candidates and perceptions of
matters which are intrinsic to democratic processes, such as awareness,
knowledge, interest, and participation. The study assumed that issue advocacy
ads that target specific candidates function much like candidate-sponsored
negative ads, except that they circumvent usual safeguards with respect to
accountability, thus doing even greater damage to the democratic process. The
pattern of results provide considerable nuance as to the workings and effects of
soft-money-sponsored issue advocacy ads.
The results failed to support predictions which posited greater influence for
candidate-sponsored negative ads over positive ads, or greater influence of
soft-money-sponsored issue
Influence
of Political Campaign Advertising 29
advocacy ads over candidate-sponsored positive or negative ads. Instead, the
pattern of results revealed that efficacy of specific political advertising
approaches varies based on viewer party affiliation, thus offering qualified
support for the interaction prediction of experimental condition and political
party identification.
None of the advertising approaches exerted any appreciable influence on
Democratic identifiers. There are two plausible explanations for this finding.
First, research suggests that Democrats are less susceptible than Republicans or
nonpartisans to the influence of negative ads (Ansolabehere & Iyengar, 1995),
and two of the three advertising genres employed in the study were negative
(both the candidate-sponsored negative and soft-money-sponsored issue advocacy
categories). Second, late polls revealed that Democratic candidates were
slightly ahead of their Republican opponents in two of the three campaigns
featured in the study, with margins that increased by election day. Thus, the
Democratic viewers in the study may have been more committed to their candidate
preferences and, therefore, less susceptible to the influence the campaign
advertising.
Candidate-sponsored positive ads affected both Republican and nonaffiliated
viewers' perceptions of sponsor character, but exerted no other effects. This
result for positive advertising suggests that, to the extent that positive ads
exert influence, the effect is principally to bolster viewers' perceptions of
the character of an ad's sponsors. Candidate character is, of course, an
instrumental decision criteria for voters (Asher, 1980; Campbell, 1983; Graber,
1980; Hahn & Goncher, 1972; Just et al., 1996; Kirkpatrick, Lyons, & Fitzgerald,
1975; O'Keefe, 1975; Pfau & Burgoon, 1989; Pomper, 1975; Popkin, 1991), although
research suggests that it exerts greater influence early, rather than late, in
election cycles (Becker & McCombs, 1978; Gopoian, 1982; Hofstetter, Zukin, &
Bus, 1978; Kennamer & Chaffee, 1982; Kinder, 1978; Patterson, 1980;
Influence
of Political Campaign Advertising 30
Popkin, 1991). This study was conducted near the end of an election cycle, and
it featured highly visible races. If candidate-sponsored positive ads exert more
expansive influence beyond just perceptions of character, as past studies imply
(Ansolabehere & Iyengar, 1995; Atkin et al., 1973; Atkin & Heald, 1976;
Hofstetter & Bus, 1980; Josyln, 1981; Patterson & McClure, 1976), this
investigation would have been less likely to discern such effects.
Candidate-sponsored negative and soft-money issue advocacy advertising exerted
unique impacts. Candidate-sponsored negative ads exerted sizable influence on
Republican viewers, fostering more positive overall attitudes toward sponsors
and promoting more positive perceptions of sponsors' competence and character.
This result offers further support for Ansolabehere and Iyengar's finding that,
"the more Republican or conservative a viewer is, the more receptive he or she
is to attacks" (1995, p. 93).
Candidate-sponsored negative ads exerted a modest backlash effect among
nonpartisan viewers, reducing viewers' perception of the overall attitude of
sponsoring candidates. This result offers qualified support for the findings of
Stewart (1975), Swinyard (1981), Merritt (1984), Garramone (1984, 1985), Roddy &
Garramone (1988), Garramone et al., (1990), Shapiro and Rieger (1989, 1992), and
Basil et al. (1991) that candidate-sponsored negative ads can backfire on
sponsors. However, the results of this study suggest that backlash effects may
be a function of partisanship, primarily confined to unaffiliated prospective
voters. In this sense, this finding is at odds with Ansolabehere and Iyengar's
(1995) conclusion that nonpartisans are more susceptible than partisans to the
influence of negative ads, while at the same time, it supports their position
that nonpartisans are more repulsed than partisans by negative ads.
One of the most interesting and important findings of this study is that
soft-money-sponsored issue advocacy ads exerted a persistent impact, uniquely,
on unaffiliated viewers. The
Influence
of Political Campaign Advertising 31
issue advocacy ads enhanced overall attitudes toward candidates who were
implicitly supported in the ads, and they produced more positive perceptions of
these candidates' competence and character. These findings are consistent with
the results of the only other study conducted as to the political influence of
third-party-sponsored issue advocacy ads, which found nonpartisans to be more
susceptible than Republican identifiers to the influence of PAC-sponsored
negative political ads (Garramone, 1985). If the purpose of soft-money-sponsored
issue advocacy ads is to affect the candidate preferences of potential voters,
the results of this investigation confirm that they are stunningly successful
with precisely those prospective voters who are in position to tip the balance
in close elections: the unaffiliated. Also, the results support the contention
of Dreyfuss (1998) and others that, even though issue advocacy ads do not
explicitly advocate election or defeat of specific candidates, their attack
approach impacts candidate preferences and, as a result, potentially can
influence election outcomes.
Perhaps the most important findings of this investigation involve the influence
of soft-money-sponsored issue advocacy ads on criteria relevant to the
democratic process. Quite apart from the potential influence of specific
advertising approaches on viewer candidate preference, do different approaches
manifest distinct benefits or consequences for the process of democracy? Only
one previous study has examined the impact of soft-money-sponsored issue
advocacy advertising on democratic processes, finding no effect on voter
participation (Garramone, 1985). However, this study predated the rapid ascent
of issue advocacy advertising in contemporary political campaigns (Drinkard,
1998; Dreyfuss, 1998), and it didn't feature party-sponsored ads, which have
turned out to be the fastest growing variant of issue advocacy advertising
(Brubaker, 1998).
Influence
of Political Campaign Advertising 32
This investigation posited that candidate-sponsored negative and
soft-money-sponsored issue advocacy ads would work similarly, promoting greater
awareness of the campaigns and knowledge of the candidates, but undermining
interest in campaigns and suppressing likelihood of voting. However, the pattern
of results indicated a very different pattern, revealing that
candidate-sponsored ads, whether positive or negative in valence, and
soft-money-sponsored issue advocacy ads, each exert distinct impacts on the
democratic process.
Both candidate-sponsored positive and negative advertising enhanced awareness
of campaigns and knowledge of the candidates, both in comparison with controls
and soft-money-sponsored issue advocacy ads. In addition, both positive and
negative candidate-sponsored advertising stimulated interest in campaigns
compared to controls, and negative advertising, in particular, generated
significantly greater interest than soft-money-sponsored issue advocacy
advertising. Finally, the results revealed a tentative finding regarding
participation, suggesting that positive ads may uniquely enhance likelihood of
voting.
The findings on awareness and knowledge are not surprising in themselves.
Previous research indicates that viewer exposure to campaign advertising,
generally, is positively associated with learning about candidates and their
positions (Ansolabehere & Iyengar, 1995; Atkin, 1973; Atkin & Heald, 1976;
Garramone, 1983, 1984; Kaid & Sanders, 1978; Patterson & McClure, 1974, 1976;
Hofstetter et al., 1978). However, past research also indicates that negative
ads generally are more involving than positive ads (Garramone et al., 1990;
Pinkleton, 1998) and, therefore, may contribute to even more learning (Bowen,
1994; Garramone et al., 1990; Shapiro & Rieger, 1989). Findings of this study
dispute this contention. No studies have previously examined the influence of
soft-money issue advocacy ads on viewer awareness or knowledge, but it was
assumed that, since they resemble candidate-sponsored negative ads, they would
Influence
of Political Campaign Advertising 33
contribute to greater awareness and knowledge than positive ads. Instead, they
proved inferior to candidate-sponsored ads in generating awareness and
knowledge.
The finding that positive and negative candidate-sponsored advertising elicits
viewer interest in campaigns, with negative ads generating greater interest than
soft-money-sponsored issue advocacy ads, is interesting. However it is
theoretically unexplainable. If viewers were aware of sponsorship, it could be
reasoned that they were more disdainful of issue advocacy ads. However, results
revealed that more than 70% of viewers, either were unaware of the sponsors of
the issue advocacy ads or mistakenly assumed that candidates sponsored the ads.
Further research is required to confirm the unique influence of issue advocacy
ads on interest in campaigns and to explore reasons for this phenomenon.
Finally, the results tentatively suggest that candidate-sponsored positive
advertising heightens likelihood of voting, whereas candidate-sponsored negative
ads and soft-money-sponsored issue advocacy ads exert no influence on
participation. Further research is needed to resolve the issue of advertising
approach and participation. Results to date, based solely on candidate-sponsored
advertising, are inconclusive, some studies revealing that negative ads suppress
turnout (Ansolabehere & Iyengar, 1995; Copeland & Johnson-Cartee, 1990; Kahn &
Kenney, 1998; Ragsdale & Rusk, 1995), some indicating no effect (Cover, 1986;
Finkel & Geer, 1998; Lau et al., in press), and others finding heightened
turnout (Geer & Lau, 1998).
Conclusion
The role of soft money in election campaigns, especially its use for
issue-advocacy ads, is a defining public policy issue. During 1996, major
political parties and special interest groups spent more than $150-million on
issue advocacy advertising with political parties surpassing PACs as the primary
supporter of this genre of advertising. By 1998, in many Senate and House
Influence
of Political Campaign Advertising 34
campaigns, spending on issue advocacy advertising approached levels spent for
paid advertising by candidates themselves (Hurt, 1999; Meyers, 1999). Spending
for issue advocacy advertising is projected to increase sharply in the 2000
election cycle.
Despite its increasing role in campaigns, little attention has been paid to the
question of the direct influence of soft money on the electorate or its indirect
influence on democratic processes. This investigation examined the influence of
soft-money-sponsored issue advocacy ads in House and Senate campaigns, comparing
the effects of issue advocacy advertising versus candidate-sponsored positive
and negative ads on viewer attitudes toward candidates and their perceptions of
matters intrinsic to democratic processes, such as awareness, knowledge,
interest, and participation.
The pattern of results provide considerable nuance as to the workings and
effects of soft-money-sponsored issue advocacy ads. Results revealed no main
effects for advertising approach on candidate preference. Instead, advertising
approach exerts unique influence depending on viewer political party
affiliation. While none of the advertising approaches exerted influence on
Democratic viewers, candidate-sponsored negative advertising was especially
effective with Republican viewers and soft-money-sponsored issue advocacy
advertising was particularly effective with nonpartisan viewers, who are in
position to tip the balance in close elections.
The influence of advertising approach on criteria relevant to democratic
processes was especially revealing. Contrary to prediction, candidate-sponsored
advertising, whether positive or negative, elicited greater viewer awareness and
interest in the campaigns and more knowledge of candidates, both compared to
controls and to soft-money-sponsored issue advocacy advertising. Voter
awareness, interest, and knowledge are positive outcomes, promotive of
democratic processes.
Influence of Political Campaign Advertising 35
References
Abramson, P. R. (1983). Political attitudes in America. San Francisco: W. H.
Freeman.
Abramson, P. R., Aldrich, J. H., & Rohde, D. W. (1983). Change and continuity
in the 1980 elections (rev. ed.). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
Adkins, L. (1978, June). How good are advocacy ads? Dunn's Review, pp. 76-77.
Anderson, N. H. (1974). Information integration: A brief survey. In D. H.
Krantz, R. C. Atkinson, R. D. Luce, & P. Suppes (Eds.), Contemporary
developments in mathematical psychology (Vol. 2). San Francisco: Freeman.
Ansolabehere, S., & Iyengar, S. (1996). The craft of political advertising: A
progress report. In D. C. Mutz, P. M. Sniderman, & R. A. Brody, Political
persuasion and attitude change (pp. 101-122). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press.
Ansolabehere, S., & Iyengar, S. (1995). Going negative: How political
advertisements shrink and polarize the electorate. New York: The Free Press.
Armstrong, R. (1988). The next hurrah: The communication revolution in American
politics. New York: Beach Tree Books, William Morrow.
Asher, H. (1980). Presidential elections and American politics: Voters,
candidates, and campaigns since 1952 (rev. ed.). Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Pres.
Astor, G. (1976, April). The gospel according to Mobil. More, pp. 12-15.
Atkin, C. K. (1971). How imbalanced campaign coverage affects audience exposure
patterns. Journalism Quarterly, 48, 235-244.
Atkin, C. K. (1973). Instrumental utilities and information-seeking. In P.
Clarke (Ed.), New models for mass communication research (pp. 205-242). Beverly
hills, CA: Sage.
Atkin, C. K., Bowen, L., Nayman, O. B., & Sheinkopf, K. G. (1973). Quality
versus quantity in televised political ads. Public Opinion Quarterly, 37,
209-224.
Influence
of Political Campaign Advertising 36
Atkin, C., & Heald, G. (1976). Effects of political advertising. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 40, 216-228.
Axelrod, D. (1988, November 9). Broadcast views. Advertising Age, pp. 88-92.
Axelrod, R. (1972). Where the voters came from: An analysis of electoral
coalitions, 1952-1968. American Political Science Review, 66, 11-20.
Axelrod, R. (1974). Communication. American Political Science Review, 68,
717-720.
Axelrod, R. (1978). Communication. American Political Science Review, 72,
622-624.
Axelrod, R. (1982). Communication. American Political Science Review, 76,
393-396.
Axelrod, R. (1986). Presidential election coalitions in 1984. American
Political Science Review, 80, 281-285.
Barrett, L. I. (1988, September 12). Shifting mist: Pit-bull politics and weak
voter conviction make the polls bounce. Time, pp. 20-21.
Basil, M., Schooler, C., & Reeves, B. (1991). Positive and negative political
advertising: Effectiveness of ads and perceptions of candidates. In F. Biocca
(Ed.), Television and political advertising: Volume 1: Psychological processes
(pp. 245-262). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Beck, P. A. (1988). Incomplete realignment: The Reagan legacy for parties and
elections. In C. O. Jones (Ed.), The Reagan legacy: Promise and performance (pp.
145-171). Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers.
Becker, L. B., & McCombs, M. E. (1978). The role of the press in determining
voter reaction to presidential primaries. Human Communication Research, 4,
301-307.
Blumler, J. G., & McQuail, D. (1969). Television in politics: Its uses and
influence. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Influence
of Political Campaign Advertising 37
Borsuk, A. J. (1998, October 23). Election 98: Feingold protests own party's
aggressive ads, commercials from national Democratic group attack Neumann as too
extreme. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, A1.
Bowen, L. (1994). Time of voting decision and use of political advertising: The
Slade Gorton-Brock Adams senatorial campaign. Journalism Quarterly, 71, 665-675.
Brubaker, S. C. (1998, September 22). The limits of campaign spending limits.
The Public Interest, 133, 33.
Burgoon, M., & Chase, L. J. (1973). The effects of differential linguistic
patterns in messages attempting to induce resistance to persuasion. Speech
Monographs, 40, 1-7.
Burgoon, M., Cohen, M., Miller, M. D., & Montgomery, C. L. (1978). An empirical
test of resistance to persuasion. Human Communication Research, 5, 27-39.
Burgoon, M., & Miller, G. R. (1985). An expectancy interpretation of language
and persuasion. In h. Giles & N. St. Clair (Eds.), Recent advances in language,
communication, and social psychology (pp. 199-229). London: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Burgoon, M., Pfau, M., & Birk, T. S. (1995). An inoculation theory explanation
of the effects of corporate issue/advocacy advertising campaigns. Communication
Research, 22, 485- 505.
Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The
American voter. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Campbell, A., Gurin, G., & Miller, W. E. (1954). The voter decides. Evanston,
IL: Rowe, Peterson and Co.
Campbell, J. A. (1983). Candidate image evaluations: Influence and
rationalization in presidential primaries. American Politics Quarterly, 11,
293-313.
Influence
of Political Campaign Advertising 38
Cappella, J. N., & Jamieson, K. H. (1997). Spiral of cynicism: The press and
the public good. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cassata, D. (1998, May 2). Independent groups' ads increasingly steer
campaigns. Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 56(18), pp. 1108-1114.
Chaffee, S. H., & Choe, S. Y. (1980). Time of decision and media use during the
Ford-Carter campaign. Public Opinion Quarterly, 44, 53-69.
Chaffee, S. H., & McLeod, J. M. (1973). Individual vs. Social predictors of
information seeking. Journalism Quarterly, 50, 237-245.
Colford, S. W. (1988, March 14). Politicos resort to "ambush ads" on TV.
Advertising Age, p. 3.
Cooper, M. (1998, May 4). The new choirboys. Newsweek, p. 29.
Copeland, G. A., & Johnson-Cartee, K. S. (1990). Southerners' acceptance of
negative political advertising and political efficacy and activity levels.
Southeastern Political Review, 18, 86-102.
Cover, A. D. (1986). Presidential evaluation and voting for Congress. American
Journal of Political Science, 30, 781-801.
Crable, R. E., & Vibert, S. L. (1982, November). "Observations" of
Prometheus-bound: Issues, identification, and the appeal to common sense. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association.
Louisville, KY.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.
Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.
Devlin, L. P. (1989). Contrasts in presidential campaign commercials of 1988.
American Behavioral Scientist, 32, 389-414.
Influence
of Political Campaign Advertising 39
Donohue, T. R. (1973). Impact of viewer predispositions on political TV
commercials. Journal of Broadcasting, 18, 3-15.
Dreyfuss, R. (1998, January/February). Harder than soft money. The American
Prospect, pp. 30-37.
Drinkard, J. (1998, October 26). Loopholes in campaign law are gifts that keep
on giving. USA Today, pp. 1A-2A.
Dwyre, D. (1996). Spinning straw into gold: Soft money and U.S. house
elections. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 21, 409-424.
Ehrenhalt, A. (1985). Technology, strategy bring new campaign era.
Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 43, 2559-2565.
Finkel, S. E., & Geer, J. G. (1998). A spot check: Casting doubt on the
demobilizing effect of attack advertising. American Journal of Political
Science, 42, 573-595.
Fiske, S. T. (1980). Attention and weight in person perception: The impact of
negative and extreme behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38,
889-906.
Fiske, S. T., Lau, R. R., & Smith, R. A. (1990). On the varieties and utilities
of political expertise. Social Cognition, 8, 31-48.
Fox, K. F. A., (1986). The measurement of issue/advocacy advertising effects.
In J. H. Leigh & C. R. Martin, Jr. (Eds.), Current issues and research in
advertising (pp. 61-92). Ann Arbor: Division of Research, University of Michigan
Business School.
Franzen, J. (1995, September). Common sense on going negative. Campaigns &
Elections, 16, pp. 67-68.
Gaddie, R. K. (1995). Investing in the future: Economic political-action
committee contributions to open-seat candidates. American Politics Quarterly,
23, 339-354.
Influence
of Political Campaign Advertising 40
Garramone, G. M. (1983). Issue versus image orientation and effects of
political advertising. Communication Research, 10, 59-76.
Garramone, G. M. (1984). Voter responses to negative political ads. Journalism
Quarterly, 61, 250-259.
Garramone, G. M. (1985). Effects of negative political advertising: The roles
of sponsor and rebuttal. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 29,
147-159.
Garramone, G. M., Atkin, C. K., Pinkleton, B. E., & Cole, R. T. (1990). Effects
of negative political advertising on the political process. Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 34, 299-311.
Geer, J., & Lau, R. R. (1998, August). A new way to model campaign effects.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science
Association, Boston, MA.
Gopoian, J. D. (1982). Issue preferences and candidate choice in presidential
primaries. American Journal of Political Science, 26, 524-546.
Graber, D. A. (1980). Mass media and American politics. Washington, DC:
Congressional Quarterly Press.
Greenblatt, A. (1998, February 14). Issue ads often more burden than blessing
for candidates. Congressional Quarterly, pp. 354-355.
Guskind, R., & Hagstrom, J. (1988). In the gutter. National Journal, 20,
2782-2790.
Hahn, D. F., & Goncher, R. M. (1972). Political myth: The image and the issue.
Today's Speech, 20, 57-65.
Hamilton, D. L., & Huffman, L. F. (1971). Generality of impression-formation
processes for evaluative and non-evaluative judgments. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 20, 200-207.
Influence
of Political Campaign Advertising 41
Haynes, A. A., & Rhine, S. L. (1998). Attack politics in presidential
nominating campaigns: An examination of the frequency and determinants of
intermediated negative messages against opponents. Political Research Quarterly,
51, 691-721.
Hickey, N. (1986, October 18). Smear commercials can work: It's high noon for
political mudslingers--Let the targets beware. TV Guide, pp. 4-6.
Hodges, B. H. (1974). Effects of valence on relative weighting in impression
formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 378-381.
Hofstetter, C. R., & Buss, T. F. (1980). Politics and last-minute television.
Western Political Quarterly, 33, 24-37.
Hofstetter, C. R., Zukin, C., & Buss, T. F. (1978). Political imagery and
information in an age of television. Journalism Quarterly, 55, 562-569.
Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and
persuasion. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Hurt, E. (1999, February 2). Researcher: Soft money calls shots. Wisconsin
State Journal, p. 2A.
Jamieson, K. H. (1988, October 30). For televised mendacity: This year is the
worst ever. Washington Post, Outlook, pp. C1-C2.
Johnson-Cartee, K. S., & Copeland, G. A. (1989, May). Alabama voters and
acceptance of negative political advertising in the 1986 elections: An
historical anomaly. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International
Communication Association, San Francisco, CA.
Johnson-Cartee, K. S., & Copeland, G. A. (1991). Negative political
advertising: Coming of age. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Johnson-Cartee, K. S., & Copeland, G. A. (1997). Manipulation of the American
voter: Political campaign commercials. New York: Praeger.
Influence
of Political Campaign Advertising 42
Jordan, N. (1965). The asymmetry of liking and disliking: A phenomenon meriting
further reflection and research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 29, 315-322.
Josyln, R. A. (1981). The impact of campaign spot advertising on voting
defections. Human Communication Research, 7, 347-360.
Just, M. R., Crigler, a. N., Alger, D. E., Cook, T. E., Kern, M., & West, D. M.
(1996). Crosstalk: Citizens, candidates, and the media in a presidential
campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago press.
Kahn, K. F., & Kenney, P. J. (1998). Do negative campaigns mobilize or suppress
turnout? Clarifying the relationship between negativity and participation.
Manuscript under review.
Kaid, L. L., & & Boydston, J. (1987). An experimental study of the
effectiveness of negative political advertisements. Communication Quarterly, 35,
193-201.
Kaid, L. L., & Sanders, K. (1978). Political television commercials: An
experimental study of type and length. Communication Research, 5, 57-70.
Kamber, V. (1997). Poison politics: Are negative campaigns destroying
democracy? New York: Plenum Press.
Keith, B. (1992). The myth of the independent voter. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Kellermann, K. (1984). The negativity effect and its implications for initial
interaction. Communication Monographs, 51, 37-55.
Kennamer, J. D., & Chaffee, S. H. (1982). Communication of political
information during early presidential primaries: Cognition, affect, and
uncertainty. In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication yearbook 5 (pp. 627-650). New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Influence
of Political Campaign Advertising 43
Kenski, H. C., & Lockwood, W. (1988, September). Party coalitions in the
eighties. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political
Science Association, Washington, DC.
Kern, M. (1989). 30-second politics: Political advertising in the eighties. New
York: Praeger.
Kern, M., & Just., M. (1995). The focus group method, political advertising,
campaign news, and the construction of candidate images. Political
Communication, 12, 127-145.
Kernall, S. (1977). Presidential popularity and negative voting: An alternative
explanation of the midterm congressional decline of the President's party. The
American Political Science Review, 71, 44-66.
Kinder, D. R. (1978). Political person perception: An asymmetrical influence of
sentiment and choice on perceptions of presidential candidates. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 859-871.
King, M. (1977). Assimilation and contrast of presidential candidates' issue
positions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 41, 515-522.
Kirkpatrick,, S. A., Lyons, W., & Fitzgerald, M. R. (1975). Candidates,
parties, and issues in the American electorate: Two decades of change. American
Politics Quarterly, 3, 231-240.
Knight, A. (1998, November 22). The "issue-ad" masquerade: "educational" groups
bypass regulations. The Denver Post, I01.
Lang, A. (1989, May). Effects on memory of emotion over-time within TV messages
on visual and verbal memory. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
International Communication Association, San Francisco, CA.
Lang, A. (1991). Emotion, formal features, and memory for televised political
advertisements. In F. Biocca (Ed.), Television and political advertising: Volume
1: Psychological processes (pp. 221-243). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Influence
of Political Campaign Advertising 44
Lang, A., & Friestad, M. (1987, May). Hemispheric specialization and memory for
emotional television messages. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
International Communication Association, Montreal, Canada.
Lang, A., & Lanfear, P. (1990). The information processing of televised
political advertising: Using theory to maximize recall. Advances in Consumer
Research, 17, 149-158.
Lau, R. R. (1982). Negativity in political perception. Political Behavior, 4,
353-377.
Lau, R. R. (1985). Two explanations for negativity effects in political
behavior. American Journal of Political Science, 29, 119-138.
Lau, R. R., Sigelman, L., Heldman, C., & Babbitt, P. (In press). The effects of
negative political advertisements: A meta-analytic assessment. American
Political Science Review.
Levin, I. P., & Schmidt, C. F. (1969). Sequential effects in information
formation with binary intermittent responding. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 79, 283-287.
Levine, B. J. (1997). Campaign finance reform legislation in the United States
Congress: A critique. Crime, Law & Social Change, 28, 1-25.
Louden, A. D. (1987, May). Political advertising in the Hunt/Helms Senate race:
Pot shots and hot spots. Paper presented an the annual; meeting of the
International Communication Association, Montreal, Canada.
Magleby, D. B., & Nelson, C. J. (1990). The money chase: Congressional campaign
finance reform. Washington, SC: Brookings.
Mann, T. E., & Ornstein, N. J. (1983). Sending a message: Voters and Congress
in 1982. In T. E. Mann & N. J. Ornstein (Eds.), The American election of 1982
(pp. 133-152). Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.
Influence of Political Campaign Advertising 45
Mann, T. T., & Wolfinger, R. E. (1984). Candidates and parties in congressional
elections. In R. G. Niemi & H. F. Weisberg (Eds.), Controversies in voting
behavior (2nd. Ed., pp. 269-291). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
Markus, G. B., & Converse, P. E. (1984). A dynamic simultaneous equation model
of electoral choice. In R. G. Niemi & H. F. Weisberg (Eds.), Controversies in
voting behavior (2nd ed., pp. 132-153). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly
Press.
Martinez, M. D., & DeLegal, T. (1988, April). Negative ads and negative
attitudes: Effects and non-effects on trust and efficacy. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science association, Chicago.
Mayers, J. (1998, October 19). Wisconsin politics awash in "soft money."
Wisconsin State Journal, pp. 1A, 3A.
Mayers, J. (1999, January 7). Campaign finance group urges end of 'issue ads'
protection. Wisconsin State Journal, p. 5B.
McCroskey, J. C., Holdridge, W., & Toomb, J. K. (1974). An instrument for
measuring the source credibility of basic communication instructors. Speech
Teacher, 23, 26-33.
McCroskey, J. C., & Jenson, T. A. (1973). Image of mass media news sources.
Journal of Broadcasting, 19, 169-180.
Merritt, S. (1984). Negative political advertising: Some empirical findings.
Journal of Advertising, 13, 27-38.
Miller, G. R., & Lobe, J. (1967). Opinionated language, open- and
closed-mindedness, and response to persuasive communications. Journal of
Communication, 17, 333-341.
Miller, J. W., & Rowe, R. M. (1967). Influence of favorable and unfavorable
information upon assessment decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51,
432-435.
Influence
of Political Campaign Advertising 46
Mondak, J. M. (1996). Nothing to read: Newspapers and elections in a social
experiment. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Moore, D. L., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1985). The influence of affective reactions
to advertising: Direct and indirect mechanisms of attitude change. In L. F.
Alwitt & A. A. Mitchell (Eds.), Psychological processes and advertising effects:
Theory, research, and applications (pp. 65-87). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Moyers, B. (1984). The thirty second president [Video]. New York: PBJ.
Newhagen, J. E., & Reeves, B. (1991). Emotion and memory responses for negative
political advertising: A study of televised commercials used in the 1988
presidential election. In F. Biocca (Ed.), Television and political advertising:
Volume 1: Psychological processes (pp. 197-220). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Norpoth, H. (1987). Under way and here to stay: Party alignment in the 1980s?
Public Opinion Quarterly, 51, 376-391.
Nugent, J. F. (1987). Positively negative. Campaigns & Elections, 7(6), 47-49.
O'Keefe, G. J. (1975). Political campaigns and mass communication research. In
S. H. Chaffee (Ed.), Political communication: Issues and strategies for research
(pp. 129-164). Beverly Hills: Sage.
Owen, D. (1991). Media messages in American presidential elections. New York:
Greenwood Press.
Patterson, T.E. (1980). The mass media election: How Americans choose their
President. New York: Praeger.
Patterson, T. E., & McClure, R. D. (1974). Political advertising: Voter
reaction to televised political commercials. Princeton, NJ: Citizens Research
Foundation.
Influence
of Political Campaign Advertising 47
Patterson, T. E., & McClure, R. D. (1976). The unseeing eye: The myth of
television power in national elections. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
Petrocik, J. R. (1980). Contextual sources of voting behavior: The changeable
American voter. In J. C. Pierce & J. L. Sullivan (Eds.), The electorate
reconsidered (pp. 257-277). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Petrocik, J. R. (1987). Realignment: New party coalitions and the
nationalization of the South. Journal of Politics, 49, 347-373.
Pfau, M., & Burgoon, M. (1988). Inoculation in political campaign
communication. Human Communication Research, 15, 91-111.
Pfau, M., & Burgoon, M. (1989). The efficacy of issue and character attack
message strategies in political campaign communication. Communication Reports,
2, 53-61.
Pfau, M., Diedrich, T., Larson, K. M., & Van Winkle, K. M. (1993). Relational
and competence perceptions of presidential candidates during primary election
campaigns. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 37, 275-292.
Pfau, M., Diedrich, T., Larson, K. M., & Van Winkle, K. M. (1995). Influence of
communication modalities on voters' perceptions of candidates during
presidential primary campaigns. Journal of Communication, 45(1), 122-133.
Pfau, M., Kendall, K. E., Reichert, T., Hellweg, S. A., Lee, W., Tusing, K. J.,
& Proise, T. O. (1997). Influence of communication during the distant phase of
the 1996 Republican presidential primary campaign. Journal of Communication, 47,
6-26.
Pfau, M., & Kenski, H. C. (1990). Attack politics: Strategy and defense. New
York: Praeger.
Influence
of Political Campaign Advertising 48
Pfau, M., Parrott, R., & Lindquist, B. (1992). An expectancy theory explanation
of the effectiveness of political attack television spots: A case study. Journal
of Applied Communication Research, 20, 235-253.
Pinkleton, B. E. (1998). Effects of print comparative political advertising on
political decision-making and participation. Journal of Communication, 48,
24-36.
Podhorzer, M. (1995). Unhealthy money - Health reform and the 1994 elections.
International Journal of Health Services, 25, 393-401.
Pomper, G. M. (1975). Voter's choice: Varieties of American electoral behavior.
New York: Harper & Row.
Popkin, S. L. (1991). The reasoning voter: Communication and persuasion in
presidential campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pratkanis, A. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (1985). A reliable sleeper effect in
persuasion: Implications for opinion change theory and research. In L. F. Alwitt
& A. A. Mitchell (Eds.), Psychological processes and advertising effects:
Theory, research, and applications (pp. 157- 173). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Preston, I. L. (1999, January 17). Buckley finding in issue ads should be
overturned. Wisconsin State Journal, p. 2B.
Price, V., & Zaller, J. (1993). Who got the news? Alternative measures of news
reception and their implications for research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 57,
133-164.
Ragsdale, L., & Rusk, J. G. (1995). Candidates, issues, and participation in
Senate elections. Legislative studies quarterly, 20, 305-327.
Reeves, B., Newhagen, J., Maibach, E., Basil, M., & Kurz, K. (1989, May).
Negative and positive messages: Effects of message type and message context on
attention and memory. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International
Communication association, San Francisco.
Influence
of Political Campaign Advertising 49
Reid, L. N., Soley, L. C., & Vanden Bergh, B. G. (1981). Does source affect
response to direct advocacy print advertisements? Journal of Business Research,
9, 309-319.
Roddy, B. L., & Garramone, G. M. (1988, June). Negative political advertising:
Appeals and strategies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
International Communication Association, New Orleans, LA.
Rubin, R. B., Palmgreen, P., & Sypher, H. E. (Eds.), Communication research
measures: A sourcebook. New York: Guilford Press.
Sabato, L. J. (1981). The rise of political consultants: New ways of winning
elections. New York: Basic Books.
Sabato, L. J. (1983). Parties, PACs, and independent groups. In T. E. Mann & N.
J. Ornstein (Eds.), The American election of 1982 (pp. 72-110). Washington, DC:
American Enterprise Institute.
Salmore, S. A., & Salmore, B. G. (1985). Candidates, parties, and campaigns:
Electoral politics in America. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
Schneider, W. (1988). Solidarity's not enough. National Journal, 20, 2853-2855.
Sethi, S. P. (1977). Advocacy advertising and large corporations. Lexington:
Lexington Books.
Shapiro, M. A., & Rieger, R. H. (1989, May). Comparing positive and negative
political advertising. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
International Communication Association, San Francisco, CA.
Shapiro, M. A., & Rieger, R. H. (1992). Comparing positive and negative
political advertising on radio. Journalism Quarterly, 69, 135-145.
Sherrod, D. (1971). Selection perceptions of political candidates. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 35, 354-362.
Influence
of Political Campaign Advertising 50
Shively, W. P. (1980). The nature of party identification: A review of recent
developments. In J. C. Pierce & J. L. Sullivan (Eds.), The electorate
reconsidered (pp. 219-236). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Stanga, J. T., & Sheffield, J. T. (1987). The myth of zero partisanship:
Attitudes toward American political parties, 1964-1984. American Journal of
Political Science, 31, 829-855.
Stanley, H. W., Bianco, W. T., & Niemi, R. G. (1986). Partisanship and group
support over time: A multivariate analysis. American Political Science Review,
80, 969-976.
Stewart, C. J. (1975). Voter perceptions of mudslinging in political
communication. Central State Speech Journal, 26, 279-286.
Surlin, S. H., & Gordon, T. F. (1977). How values affect attitudes toward
direct reference political advertising. Journalism Quarterly, 54, 89-98.
Suro, R. (1998, December 2). Audits fault Clinton, Dole on '96 party ads, The
Washington Post, p. A1.
Swinyard, W. R. (1981). The interaction between comparative advertising and
copy claim variation. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 175-186.
Swinyard, W. R., & Coney, K. A. (1978). Promotional effects of a high versus
low-involvement electorate. Journal of Consumer Research, 5, 41-48.
Tarrance, V. L., Jr. (1980). Negative campaigns and negative votes: The 1980
elections. Washington, DC: Free Congress Research and Education Foundation.
Taylor, P. (1986, October 5). Negative ads becoming powerful political force:
More candidates going for the jugular on TV. Washington Post, p. 1.
Tedesco, R. (1998, September 7). Issue ads to boost political spending.
Broadcasting & Cable, 128, p. 11.
Influence
of Political Campaign Advertising 51
Thorson, E., & Friestad, M. (1985). The effects of emotion on episodic memory
for television commercials. In P. Cafferata & A Tybout (Eds.), Advances in
consumer psychology (pp. 131-136). Lexington, MA: Lexington.
Tinkham, S. F., & Weaver-Lariscy, R. A. (1993). A diagnostic approach to
assessing the impact of negative political television commercials. Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 37, 377-399.
Warr, P., & Jackson, P. (1976). Three weighting criteria in impression
formation. European Journal of social Psychology, 6, 41-49.
Wattenberg, M. P. (1986). The decline of American political parties, 1952-1984.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Weigold, M. F. (1992). Negative political advertising: Individual differences
in responses to issue vs. Image ads. In L. N. Reid (Ed.), Proceedings of the
1992 Conference of the American Academy of Advertising (pp. 144-149). Athens,
GA: Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Georgia.
Weisberg, H. F., & Rusk, J. G. (1970). Dimensions of candidate evaluation.
American Political Science Review, 64, 1167-1185.
Whiteley, P. F. (1988). The causal relationships between issues, candidate
evaluations, party identification, and vote choice--The view from "Rolling
Thunder." Journal of Politics, 50, 961-984.
Wyer, R. S. (1970). Information redundancy, inconsistency, and novelty and
their role in impression formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
6, 111-127.
Influence
of Political Campaign Advertising 52
Table 1
Candidate Perception as a Function of Experimental Condition and Political Party
Identification
____________________________________________________________________________
Experimental Condition
____________________________________________________
Candidate-Sponsored Soft-Money
Control Positive Negative Issue Advocacy
Dependent Measures
____________________________________________________________________________
DEMOCRATIC VIEWERS
n 30 38 36
46
Attitude
M 4.27 4.31 4.23
4.16
SD 0.57 0.34 0.60
0.40
Competence
M 4.45 4.52 4.69
4.47
SD 0.72 0.59
0.79 0.61
Character
M 4.23 4.29 4.20
4.09
SD 0.52 0.32 0.57
0.31
REPUBLICAN VIEWERS
n 14 12
24 22
Attitude
M 3.99 4.13 4.23b
3.93
SD 0.57 0.34 0.60
0.40
Competence
M 4.40 4.52 4.70b
4.26
SD 0.37 1.00
0.73 0.48
Character
M 4.04 4.26b 4.25b
3.86
SD 0.48 0.52 0.36
0.29
Influence
of Political Campaign Advertising 53
Table 1 (continued)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Experimental Condition
_____________________________________________________
Candidate-Sponsored Soft-Money
Control Positive Negative Issue Advocacy
Dependent Measure
_____________________________________________________________________________
UNAFFILIATED VIEWERS
n 19 16
25 21
Attitude
M 4.17 4.32 3.97b
4.39b
SD 0.36 0.39 0.81
0.38
Competence
M 4.42 4.58 4.42
4.97ac
SD 0.65 0.56
1.06 0.90
Character
M 3.94 4.25a 4.05
4.28a
SD 0.78 0.32 0.84
0.35
______________________________________________________________________________
Note. Attitude, competence, and character were measured using 7-point scales.
Higher scores
signify greater influence of ads.
a significant compared to control at p < .01.
b significant compared to control at p < .05.
c significant compared to positive ads at p < .05.
Influence
of Political Campaign Advertising 54
Table 2
Awareness and Interest in Campaigns, Knowledge of Candidates, and Likelihood of
Voting as a
Function of Experimental Condition
_____________________________________________________________________________
Experimental Condition
_____________________________________________________
Candidate-Sponsored Soft-Money
Control Positive Negative Issue Advocacy
(n=65) (n=66)
(n=88) (n=91)
Dependent Measures
_____________________________________________________________________________
Awareness of Campaigns
M 2.86 3.35ad
3.52ae 2.92
SD 1.50 1.33
1.32 1.39
Interest in Campaigns
M 2.78 3.13b 3.43ad
2.99
SD 1.54 1.48 1.46
1.39
Knowledge of Candidates
M 2.58 3.14ad 3.35ae
2.75
SD 1.38 1.25 1.18
1.32
Likelihood of Voting
M 55.28 61.18c 58.13
54.40
SD 32.25 31.10
31.75 32.88
_____________________________________________________________________________
Note. Perceptions of awareness and interest in campaigns and knowledge of the
candidates were assessed using 7-point scales, whereas likelihood of voting in
the election was measured with a 0-100-point scale. Higher scores on these
measures indicate more enthusiasm for democratic processes.
a significant compared to control at p < .01.
b significant compared to control at p < .05.
c approaching significance compared to control at p < .10.
d significant compared to issue advocacy ads at p < .01.
e significant compared to issue advocacy ads at p < .05.
Influence
of Political Campaign Advertising 1
Running Head: INFLUENCE OF POLITICAL CAMPAIGN ADVERTISING
Impact of Soft-Money-Sponsored Issue Advocacy Advertising
versus Candidate-Sponsored Positive and Negative Advertising:
Influences on Candidate Preferences and Democratic Processes
Michael Pfau, R. Lance Holbert, Erin Alison Szabo, and Kelly Kaminski
Please direct all replies concerning this manuscript to Michael Pfau, School of
Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Wisconsin--Madison, 5016 Vilas
Hall, Madison, WI 53706. Office phone: (608)-262-0334; home phone:
(608)-827-8224; fax number: (608)-262-1361;
e-mail address: [log in to unmask]
For presentation at the AEJMC convention in New Orleans, LA, August 4-7, 1999
Authors' Note:
Michael Pfau is Professor and Director of Graduate Studies in the School of
Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Wisconsin--Madison. R.
Lance Holbert, Erin Alison Szabo, and Kelly Kaminski are graduate students in
the School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of
Wisconsin--Madison.
|
