This experimental study of the 1996 television spots conducted in a series of locations during the general election campaign indicates that exposure to Dole's spots enhanced his image in September, but October exposures resulted in a negative image effect for Dole and a positive one for Clinton. Effects of spot exposure on independents and on women were particularly significant. The results also show that technological manipulations in negative spots can achieve the desired effects for ad sponsors.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Center for Media and Public Affairs . (1996, November/December). Campaign '96 final: How TV news covered the general election. Washington, DC: Author.
2.
Cundy, D. T. (1986). Political commercials and candidate image. In L. L. Kaid, D. Nimmo, & K. R. Sanders (Eds.), New perspectives on political advertising (pp. 210-234). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
3.
Devlin, L. P. (1997). Contrasts in presidential campaign commercials of 1996. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(8), 1058-1084.
4.
Kaid, L. L. (1991). The effects of television broadcasts on perceptions of political candidates in the United States and France. In L. L. Kaid, J. Gerstlé, & K. Sanders (Eds.), Mediated politics in two cultures: Presidential campaigning in the United States and France. New York: Praeger.
5.
Kaid, L. L. (1993, May). Ethics in televised political advertising: Guidelines for evaluation of technological distortions. Paper presented at the International Communication Association Convention, Washington, D.C.
6.
Kaid, L. L. (1995). Measuring candidate images with semantic differentials. In K. Hacker (Ed.), Candidate images in presidential election campaigns (pp. 131-134). New York: Praeger.
7.
Kaid, L. L. (1996a, October). The effects of advertising in election campaigns. Paper presented at the International Colloquium on Effects of Election Campaigns, University of Montreal, Montreal, Canada.
8.
Kaid, L. L. (1996b). Technology and political advertising: The application of ethical standards to the 1992 spots. Communication Research Reports, 13(2), 129-137.
9.
Kaid, L. L. (1996c, September). Televised political advertising in the 1996 elections: Using technology to manipulate voters. Paper presented at the American Political Science Association Convention, San Francisco.
10.
Kaid, L. L. (in press). Videostyle and the effects of the 1996 presidential campaign advertising. In R. E. Denton (Ed.), The 1996 presidential campaign: A communication perspective. Westport, CT: Praeger.
11.
Kaid, L. L. , & Chanslor, M. (1995). Changing candidate images: The effects of television advertising. In K. Hacker (Ed.), Candidate images in presidential election campaigns (pp. 83-97). New York: Praeger.
12.
Kaid, L. L. , Leland, C. M., & Whitney, S. (1992). The impact of televised political ads: Evoking viewer responses in the 1988 presidential campaign. The Southern Communication Journal, 57(4), 285-295.
13.
Kaid, L. L. , & Sanders, K. R. (1978). Political television commercials: An experimental study of type and length. Communication Research, 5, 57-70.
14.
McKinnon, L. M. (1995). Mediating political mudslinging or magnifying advertising effects: An experimental examination of political adwatches. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oklahoma.
15.
Miller, A. H. , Wattenberg, M. P., & Malanchuk, O. (1986). Schematic assessments of presidential candidates. American Political Science Review, 80(2), 521-536.
16.
Noggle, G. (1996). The effects of technological distortion and visual literacy in political advertising. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oklahoma.
17.
West, D. M. (1993). Air wars: Television advertising in election campaigns. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
