In this study, we examine the impact of sponsorship cues in issue versus candidate advertising on perceived credibility, persuasion, information retention, and priming of message-relevant issues. Theories of persuasion and attitude change suggest that citizens should react differently to the same message when source cues are varied. In an experiment, adult participants saw either an actual ad sponsored by the Sierra Club, an edited version in which Al Gore was depicted as the sponsor, or no ad at all. Although participants were slightly less able to correctly identify the sponsor of the issue ad, the ad was seen as more credible and persuasive than the candidate-sponsored version. Though both were negative in tone, the issue ad did not depress participatory intentions as much as the candidate ad. Participants also retained more information from the issue appeal. Finally, the issue ad was a more powerful prime for message-relevant performance criteria in evaluations of the target, George W. Bush. The implications of these findings for the ongoing debate on campaign-finance reform are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aday, S.
(2000). Issue advocacy advertising during the early 1999-2000 election cycle. Elections report funded by the Pew Charitable Trust. Available from http://appcpenn.org/issueads/March2000report.htm
2.
Althaus, S. L.
(1998). Information effects in collective preferences. American Political Science Review, 92(3), 545-558.
3.
Anderson, J. R.
(1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
4.
Andreoli, V.
, & Worchel, S. (1978). Effects of media, communicator, and position of message on attitude change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 42, 59-70.
5.
Ansolabehere, S. D.
, & Iyengar, S. (1995). Going negative: How political advertising shrinks and polarizes the electorate (pp. 37-114). New York: Free Press.
6.
Ansolabehere, S. D.
, Iyengar, S., & Simon, A. (1999). Replicating experiments using aggregate and survey data: The case of negative advertising and turnout. American Political Science Review, 93(4), 901-910.
7.
Ansolabehere, S. D.
, Iyengar, S., Simon, A., & Valentino, N. (1994). Does attack advertising demobilize the electorate?American Political Science Review, 88, 829-838.
8.
Bartels, L.
(1996). Uninformed votes: Information effects in presidential elections. American Journal of Political Science, 40(1), 194-230.
9.
Beck, D.
, Taylor, P., Stanger, J., & Rivlin, D. (1997). Issue advocacy advertising during the 1996 campaign. Elections report funded by the Pew Charitable Trust. Available from http://appcpenn.org/appc/reports/rep16.pdf
10.
Bransford, J. D.
, & Franks, J. J. (1971). The abstraction of linguistic ideas. Cognitive Psychology, 2, 331-350.
11.
Bransford, J. D.
, & Johnson, M. K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 717-726.
12.
Collins, A.
, & Loftus, E. (1975). A spreading activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82, 407-428.
13.
Delli Carpini, M. X.
, & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven: Yale University Press.
14.
Falk, E.
(with Slass, L., Gridina, N., & Porter, N.). (2000). Issue advocacy advertising through the presidential primary 1999-2000. Elections Report funded by the Pew Charitable Trust. Available from http://appcpenn.org/issueads/2000issuead.%20htm
15.
Fiske, S. T.
, & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
16.
Hass, R. G.
, & Grady, K. (1975). Temporal delay, type of forewarning and resistance to influence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 459-469.
17.
Hovland, C. I.
, Janis, I. L., & Kelley, J. J. (1953). Communication and persuasion. New Haven: Yale University Press.
18.
Hovland, C. I.
, & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15, 635-650.
19.
Iyengar, S.
, & Kinder, D. (1987). News that matters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
20.
Iyengar, S.
, & Simon, A. F. (1993). News coverage of the gulf crisis and public opinion: A study of agenda setting, priming, and framing. Communication Research, 20, 365-383.
21.
Iyengar, S.
, & Valentino, N. (2000). Who says what? Source credibility as a mediator of political advertising. In A. Lupia, M. D. McCubbins, & S. L. Popkin (Eds.), Elements of reason: cognition, choice, and the bounds of rationality (pp. 108-129). New York: Cambridge University Press.
22.
Jamieson, K. H.
(2000). Everything you think you know about politics and why you're wrong. New York: Basic Books.
23.
Jamieson, K. H.
(2001). Issue advocacy in a changing discourse environment. In W. L. Bennett & R. M. Entman (Eds.), Mediated politics: Communication in the future of democracy (pp. 323-341). New York: Cambridge University Press.
24.
Johnson-Cartee, K. S.
, & Copeland, G. A. (1997). Inside political campaigns. Westport, Connecticut: Paeger Publishers.
25.
Kahn, K. F.
, & Kenney, P. J. (1999). Do negative campaigns mobilize or suppress turnout? Clarifying the relationship between negativity and participation. American Political Science Review, 93(4), 877-890.
26.
Kiesler, C. A.
, & Kiesler, S. B. (1964). Role of forewarning in persuasive communications. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68, 547-549.
27.
Krasno, J. S.
, & Goldstein, K. (2001). The facts about television advertising and the McCain-Feingold bill. Elections report funded by the Pew Charitable Trust. Available from http://www.polisci.wisc.edu/tvadvertising/mccain-feingold.pdf
28.
Krasno, J. S.
, & Seltz, D. E. (2000). Buying time: Television advertising in the 1998 Congressional Elections. Report funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts. Available from http://www.buyingtime.org/report/download.html
29.
Krosnick, J. A.
, & Brannon, L. A. (1993). The impact of the gulf war on the ingredients of presidential evaluations: Multidimensional effects of political involvement. American Political Science Review, 87, 963-975.
30.
Krosnick, J. A.
, & Kinder, D. R. (1990). Altering the foundations of support for the president through priming. American Political Science Review, 84, 497-512.
31.
Lawton, L. D., & Freedman, P. (2001). Beyond negativity: Advertising effects in the 2000 Virginia senate race. A catalog. Unpublished manuscript, University of Virginia.
32.
Lupia, A.
(1994). Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: Information and voting behavior in California insurance reform elections. American Political Science Review, 88(1), 63-76.
33.
Magleby, D. B.
(2000). Election advocacy: Soft money and issue advocacy in the 2000 Congressional elections. Report funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts. Available from http://www.byu.edu/outsidemoney/2000primary/overview.htm
34.
Magleby, D. B.
(2001). Dictum without data: The myth of issue advocacy and party building. Report funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts. Available from http://www.byu.edu/outsidemoney/dictum/dictum.htm
35.
McCroskey, J. C.
, & Jenson, T. A. (1973). Image of mass media news sources. Journal of Broadcasting, 19, 169-180.
36.
Miller, J.
, & Krosnick, J. A. (2000). News media impact on the ingredients of presidential evaluations: Politically knowledgeable citizens are guided by trusted sources. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 301-115.
37.
National Journal Group Inc
. (2002). Ad spotlight: Online National Journal. Available from http://nationaljournal.com/members/adspotlight/
38.
Petty, R. E.
, & Cacioppo, J. T. (1979). Effects of forewarning of persuasive intent and involvement on cognitive responses and persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 173-176.
39.
Pfau, M.
, Park, D., Holbert, R. L., & Cho, J. (2001). The effects of party- and PAC-sponsored issue advertising and the potential of inoculation to combat its impacts on the democratic process. American Behavioral Scientist, 44(12), 2379-2397.
40.
Rozell, M.
, & Wilcox, C. (1999). Interest groups in American campaigns: The new face of electioneering.Washington DC: Congressional Quarterly.
41.
Salmon, C. T.
, Reid, L. N., Pokrywczynski, J., & Willet, R. W. (1985). The effectiveness of advocacy advertising relative to news coverage. Communication Research, 12(4), 546-567.
42.
Smith, B. L.
, Lasswell, H. D., & Casey, R. D. (1946). Propaganda, communication, and public opinion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
43.
Stanger, J. D.
, & Rivlin, D. G. (1998). Issue advocacy advertising 1997-1998. Elections report funded by the Pew Charitable Trust. Available from http://appcpenn.org/issueads/report.htm
44.
Walster, E.
, Aronson, E., & Abrahams, D. (1966). On increasing the persuasiveness of a low prestige communicator. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 325-342.
45.
Watts, W. A.
, & Holt, L. E. (1979). Persistence of opinion change induced under conditions of forewarning and distraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 778-789.
46.
West, D.
(1997). Air wars: Television advertising in election campaigns 1952-1996 (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.
47.
Wyer, R.
, & Srull, T. (1980). Category accessibility and social perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 841-856.
