This study examined the effects of issue advertising on candidate preferences and the democratic process, comparing the impact of party-and PAC-sponsored advertising against candidate-sponsored positive and contrast ads. Results revealed that the influence of political advertising varies depending on party affiliation. For Republicans, candidate-sponsored contrast and party-sponsored ads are most influential, but with unaffiliated viewers, candidate-sponsored positive ads are most effective whereas party-sponsored ads are the least persuasive. Effects of political advertising on the democratic system were especially revealing. Results revealed that candidate advertising enhances viewer interest in campaigns and knowledge of candidates and their positions, but that other effects vary based on party affiliation. Finally, the study tested inoculation as an antidote to system-based consequences of issue advertising. Results revealed that inoculation was able to protect viewers against the consequences of party-sponsored ads. However, with PAC-sponsored ads, efficacy was restricted to Republican viewers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Allen, M. , & Burrell, N. (in press). The negativity effect in political advertising: A meta-analysis. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion handbook: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
2.
Ansolabehere, S. , & Iyengar, S. (1996). Going negative: How political advertisements shrink and polarize the electorate. New York: Free Press.
3.
Barry, J. (1997). The interest group society (3rd ed.). Boston: Little, Brown.
4.
Brubaker, S. C. (1998, September 22). The limits of campaign spending limits. The Public Interest, 133, 33.
5.
Burgoon, M. , Cohen, M., Miller, M. D., & Montgomery, C. L. (1978). An empirical test of resistance to persuasion. Human Communication Research, 5, 27-39.
6.
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.
7.
Cover, A. D. (1986). Presidential evaluation and voting for Congress. American Journal of Political Science, 30, 781-801.
8.
Dreyfuss, R. (1998, January/February). Harder than soft money. The American Prospect, 30-37.
9.
Dwyre, D. (1996). Spinning straw into gold: Soft money and U.S. House elections. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 21, 409-424.
10.
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.
11.
Fiske, S. T. , Lau, R. R., & Smith, R. A. (1990). On the varieties and utilities of political expertise. Social Cognition, 8, 31-48.
12.
Gaddie, R. K. (1995). Investing in the future: Economic political-action committee contributions to open-seat candidates. American Politics Quarterly, 23, 339-354.
13.
Garramone, G. M. (1985). Effects of negative political advertising: The roles of sponsor and rebuttal. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 29, 147-159.
14.
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.
15.
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.
16.
Greenblatt, A. (1998, February 14). Issue ads often more burden than blessing for candidates. Congressional Quarterly, pp. 354-355.
17.
Hurt, E. (1999, February 2). Researcher: Soft money calls shots. Wisconsin State Journal, p. 2A.
18.
Jamieson, K. H. , Waldman, P., & Sherr, S. (2000). Eliminate the negative? Categories of analysis for political advertisements. In J. A. Thurber, C. J. Nelson, & D. A. Dulio (Eds.), Crowded airwaves: Campaign advertising in elections (pp. 44-64). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
19.
Kahn, K. F. , & Kenney, P. J. (1998). Do negative campaigns mobilize or suppress turnout? Clarifying the relationship between negativity and participation. Unpublished manuscript.
20.
Kaid, L. L. , & Boydston, J. (1987). An experimental study of the effectiveness of negative political advertisements. Communication Quarterly, 35, 193-201.
21.
Lau, R. R. , & Sigelman, L. (2000). Effectiveness of negative political advertising. In J. A. Thurber, C. J. Nelson, & D. A. Dulio (Eds.), Crowded airwaves: Campaign advertising in elections (pp. 10-43). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
22.
Magleby, D. , & Holt, M. (1999, May). The long shadow of soft money and issue advocacy ads. Campaigns and Elections, 20(4), 22-27.
23.
Mayers, J. (1999, January 7). Campaign finance group urges end of `issue ads' protection. Wisconsin State Journal, p. 5B.
24.
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.
25.
McCroskey, J. C. , & Jenson, T. A. (1973). Image of mass media news sources. Journal of Broadcasting, 19, 169-180.
26.
Mondak, J. M. (1996). Nothing to read: Newspapers and elections in a social experiment. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
27.
Pfau, M. , & Burgoon, M. (1988). Inoculation in political campaign communication. Human Communication Research, 15, 91-111.
28.
Pfau, M. , Holbert, R. L., Szabo, E. A., & Kaminski, K. (in press). Issue-advocacy versus candidate advertising: Effects on candidate preferences and democratic process. Journal of Communication, 52.
29.
Pfau, M. , Kenski, H. C., Nitz, M., & Sorenson, J. (1990). Efficacy of inoculation strategies in promoting to resistance to political attack messages. Communication Monographs, 57, 25-43.
30.
Podhorzer, M. (1995). Unhealthy money—Health reform and the 1994 elections. International Journal of Health Services, 25, 393-401.
31.
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.
32.
Regsdale, L. , & Rusk, J. G. (1995). Candidates, issues, and participation in Senate elections. Legislative studies quarterly, 20, 305-327.
33.
Reich, R. B. (2000). How soft money favors the GOP. The American Prospect, 11(9), 56.
34.
Rubin, R. B. , Palmgreen, P., & Sypher, H. E. (Eds.) (1994). Communication research measures: A sourcebook. New York: Guilford Press.
35.
Slass, L. , & Aday, S. (2000, March 17). Issue ad spending at a record pace for 1999-2000 election cycle. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Annenberg Public Policy Center.
36.
Stanger, J. D. , & Rivlin, D. G. (1998). Issue advocacy advertising during the 1997-1998 election cycle. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Annenberg Public Policy Center.
37.
West, D. M. , & Loomis, B. A. (1999). The sound of money: How political interests get what they want. New York: W. W. Norton.
38.
Wyatt, S. (2000, December 12). Gore was biggest spender on TV. Wisconsin State Journal, p. B3.
