This study documents the tendency of hearers to misperceive the contents of
paid political radio advertising, particularly for high-credibility candidates:
they read in even more positive information than is in the actual ad.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
FCC Report to U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Communications, June 22, 1971; see Variety, June 23, 1971, for a summary of the testimony.
2.
R. Madden , "FCC Analyzes House-Race Ads,"New York Times, June 20, 1971, p. 30;
3.
see also E. Katz, "Platforms and Windows: Broadcasting's Role in Election Campaigns,"Journalism Quarterly, 48:2 Summer, 1971), 309.
4.
W. McGuire , "The Nature of Attitudes and Attitude Change," in G. Lindsey and E. Aronson (eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. III, Reading, Mass., Addison-Wesley, 1969, pp. 136-314.
5.
I. Preston , "Logic and Illogic in the Advertising Process,"Journalism Quarterly, 44:3 (1967), 231-239.
D. Berlo , J. Lemert, and R. Mertz, Dimensions for Evaluating the Credibility of Message SourcesEast Lansing, Michigan State University, 1966.
9.
"Kennedy, Muskie Share Poll Lead,"New York Times, August 1, 1971, p. 30. The credibility factors may be useful for detecting large differences between various sources, but they may not be effective in identifying differences between highly favorable candidates.
10.
Katz, pp. 307-309.
11.
J. Klapper , The Effects of Mass CommunicationGlencoe, Ill., Free Press, 1960 , pp. 21-22.
