Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This research examines how an attack ad’s sponsorship conditions its effectiveness. We use data from a survey experiment that exposed participants to a fictional campaign ad. Treatments varied the ad’s sponsor (candidate vs. group), the group’s donor base (small donor vs. large donors), and the format of the donor disclosure (news reports vs. disclaimers in the ads). We find that ads sponsored by unknown groups are more effective than candidate-sponsored ads, but disclosure of donors reduces the influence of group advertising, leveling the playing field such that candidate- and group-sponsored attacks become equally effective. Increased disclosure does not, however, advantage small-donor groups over large-donor groups.

Keywords

interest groups super PACs political advertising persuasion

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Berinsky

Adam J.

Huber

Gregory A.

Lenz

Gabriel S.

2012. “Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk.” Political Analysis 20:351–68.

Brooks

Deborah Jordan

Murov

Michael

. 2012. “Assessing Accountability in a Post-citizens United Era: The Effects of Attack Ad Sponsorship by Unknown Independent Groups.” American Politics Research 40 (3): 383–418.

Dowling

Conor M.

Wichowsky

Amber

. 2013. “Does It Matter Who’s Behind the Curtain? Anonymity in Political Advertising and the Effects of Campaign Finance Disclosure.” American Politics Research 41 (6): 965–96.

Dowling

Conor M.

Wichowsky

Amber

. 2014. “Attacks without Consequence? Candidates, Parties, Groups, and the Changing Face of Negative Advertising.” American Journal of Political Science. DOI:10.1111/ajps.12094.

Fowler

Erika Franklin

Ridout

Travis N.

2012. “Negative, Angry and Ubiquitous: Political Advertising in 2012.” The Forum: A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics 10 (4): 51–56.

Franz

Michael M.

2012. “Interest Groups in Electoral Politics: 2012 in Context.” The Forum: A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics 10 (4): 62–79.

Garramone

Gina M.

1985. “Effects of Negative Political Advertising: The Roles of Sponsor and Rebuttal.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 29 (2): 147–59.

Groenendyk

Eric W.

Valentino

Nicholas A.

2002. “Of Dark Clouds and Silver Linings: Effects of Exposure to Issue versus Candidate Advertising on Persuasion, Information Retention, and Issue Salience.” Communication Research 29 (3): 295–319.

Gunther

Albert C.

Schmitt

Kathleen

. 2004. “Mapping Boundaries of the Hostile Media Effect.” Journal of Communication 54 (1): 55–70.

10.

Hovland

Carl I.

Weiss

Walter

. 1951. “The Influence of Source Credibility on Communication Effectiveness.” Public Opinion Quarterly 15 (4): 635–50.

11.

Jasperson

Amy E.

Fan

David P.

2002. “An Aggregate Examination of the Backlash Effect in Political Advertising: The Case of the 1996 U.S. Senate Race in Minnesota.” Journal of Advertising 31 (1): 1–12.

12.

Johnson

Tyler

Dunaway

Johanna

Weber

Christopher R.

2011. “Consider the Source: Variations in the Effects of Negative Campaign Messages.” Journal of Integrated Social Sciences 2 (1): 98–127.

13.

Kiesler

Charles A.

Kiesler

Sara B.

1964. “Role of Forewarning in Persuasive Communications.” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 68:547–49.

14.

Ladd

Jonathan M.

2012. Why Americans Hate the Media and How It Matters. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

15.

Pornpitakpan

Chanthika

. 2004. “The Persuasiveness of Source Credibility: A Critical Review of Five Decades’ Evidence.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 34 (2): 243–81.

16.

Rivers

Douglas

. 2007. “Sampling for Web Surveys.” Paper presented at the Joint Statistical Meetings. Salt Lake City, July 29-August 2.

17.

Rivers

Douglas

Bailey

Delia

. 2009. “Inferences from Matched-Samples in the 2008 U.S. National Elections.” Paper presented at the Joint Statistical Meetings. Washington, D.C., August 1-6.

18.

Roddy

Brian L.

Garramone

Gina M.

1988. “Appeals and Strategies of Negative Political Advertising.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 32 (4): 415–27.

19.

Skinner

Richard

Masket

Seth

Dulio

David

. 2013. “527 Committees, Formal Parties, and Party Adaptation.” The Forum: A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics 11:137–56.

20.

Smith

Jeff

Kimball

David

. 2013. “Barking Louder: Interest Groups in the 2012 Election.” The Forum: A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics 10 (4): 80–90.

21.

Sternthal

Brian

Phillips

Lynn W.

Dholakia

Ruby

. 1978. “The Persuasive Effect of Scarce Credibility: A Situational Analysis.” Public Opinion Quarterly 42 (3): 285–314.

22.

Weber

Christopher

Dunaway

Johanna

Johnson

Tyler

. 2012. “It’s All in the Name: Source Cue Ambiguity and the Persuasive Appeal of Campaign Ads.” Political Behavior 34 (3): 561–84.

23.

Wesleyan Media Project. 2014. “Heated Battle for U.S. Senate Draws Deluge of Outside Group Ads, Most Are Dark Money.” Press Release, September 4. http://mediaproject.wesleyan.edu/2014/09/04/heated-battle-for-u-s-senate-draws-deluge-of-outside-group-ads-most-are-dark-money/.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.33 MB

0.34 MB

0.00 MB