Interest groups capitalize on the opportunity to influence salient U.S. Supreme Court confirmations, while pursuing organizational and policy goals and hoping to mobilize the public. We test the opportunities and limits of ad influence on political mobilization specifically looking at calls to action (i.e., donations, contacting senators, and social media engagement). By analyzing responses to real interest group-produced video ads from Amy Coney Barrett’s and Ketanji Brown Jackson’s nominations, we discover ads can potentially influence individuals’ political behavior online and spur offline political engagement. Specifically, we find name recognition, partisan congruence, and positive tone positively influence respondent engagement in calls to action. We find ad format in terms of forced exposure and negative tone decrease engagement likelihood. Our study contributes novel insights into the role of online advertising in shaping political behavior around nominations in the digital age.
AckerbergDaniel A.. 2001. “Empirically Distinguishing Informative and Prestige Effects of Advertising.” RAND Journal of Economics32: 316–333.
2.
AnsolabehreStephende FigueiredoJohn M.SnyderJames M.Jr. 2003. “Why is There So Little Money in U.S. Politics?” Journal of Economic Perspectives17 (1): 105–130.
3.
BaileyBrian P.KonstanJoseph A.CarlisJohn V.. 2001. “The Effects of Interruptions on Task Performance, Annoyance, and Anxiety in the User Interface.” Interact1: 593–601.
4.
BarberMichael. 2016. “Donation Motivations: Testing Theories of Access and Ideology.” Political Research Quarterly69 (1): 148–159.
5.
BarberaPabloJostJohn T.NaglerJonathanTuckerJoshua A.BonneauRichard. 2015. “Tweeting from Left to Right: Is Online Political Communication More Than an Echo Chamber?” Psychological Science26 (10): 1531–1542.
6.
BartelsLarry M.. 2020. Presidential Primaries and the Dynamics of Public Choice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
7.
BaumLawrenceDevinsNeal. 2019. The Company They Keep: How Partisan Divisions Came to the Supreme Court. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8.
BerinskyAdam J.MargolisMichele F.SancesMichael W.. 2014. “Separating the Shirkers from the Workers? Making Sure Respondents Pay Attention on Self-Administered Surveys.” American Journal of Political Science58 (3): 739–753.
9.
BrewerMarilynn B.. 1993. “Social Identity, Distinctiveness, and In-Group Homogeneity.” Social Cognition11 (1): 150–164.
10.
BrooksDeborah JordanMurovMichael. 2012. “Assessing Accountability in a Post-Citizens United Era: The Effects of Attack Ad Sponsorship by Unknown Independent Groups.” American Politics Research40 (3): 383–418.
11.
CaldeiraGregory A.GibsonJames L.. 1992. “The Etiology of Public Support for the Supreme Court.” American Journal of Political Science36: 635–664.
12.
CaldeiraGregory A.WrightJohn R.. 1988. “Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the US Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review82 (4): 1109–1127.
13.
CarraroLucianaCastelliLuigi. 2010. “The Implicit and Explicit Effects of Negative Political Campaigns: Is the Source Really Blamed?” Political Psychology31 (4): 617–645.
14.
ChaikenShelly. 1980. “Heuristic Versus Systematic Information Processing and the Use of Source Versus Message Cues in Persuasion.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology39 (5): 752.
15.
CleeMona A.WicklundRobert A.. 1980. “Consumer Behavior and Psychological Reactance.” Journal of Consumer Research6 (4): 389–405.
16.
CollinsPaul M.Jr.RinghandLoriBoydChristina. 2023. Supreme Bias: Gender and Race in US Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
17.
CollinsPaul M.Jr.RinghandLori A.. 2013. Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings and Constitutional Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18.
ComiskeyMichael. 2008. “The Supreme Court Appointment Process: Lessons from Filling the Rehnquist and O’Connor Vacancies.” Political Science & Politics41 (2): 355–358.
19.
CraigStephen C.KaneJames G.GainousJason. 2005. “Issue-related Learning in a Gubernatorial Campaign: A Panel Study.” Political Communication22 (4): 483–503.
20.
De VreeseClaes H.SemetkoHolli A.. 2002. “Cynical and Engaged: Strategic Campaign Coverage, Public Opinion, and Mobilization in a Referendum.” Communication Research29 (6): 615–641.
21.
EdwardsSteven M.LiHairongLeeJoo-Hyun. 2002. “Forced Exposure and Psychological Reactance: Antecedents and Consequences of the Perceived Intrusiveness of Pop-Up Ads.” Journal of Advertising31 (3): 83–95.
22.
EpsteinLeeSegalJeffrey A.WesterlandChad. 2008. “The Increasing Importance of Ideology in the Nomination and Confirmation of Supreme Court Justices.” Duke Law Review56: 609–635.
23.
ErcegNikolaBurghartMatthiasCottoneAlessiaLorimerJessicaMankuKiranPutzHannahVlasicekDenisWillemsManou. 2018. “The Effect of Moral Congruence of Calls to Action and Salient Social Norms on Online Charitable Donations: A Protocol Study.” Fronteirs in Psychology9: 1913. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01913.
24.
FineJeffery A.HuntMegan F.. 2023. “Negativity and Elite Message Diffusion on Social Media.” Political Behavior45 (3): 955–973.
25.
FournierPatrickSorokaStuartNirLilach. 2020. “Negativity Biases and Political Ideology: A Comparative Test Across 17 Countries.” American Political Science Review114 (3): 775–791.
26.
FowlerErika FranklinRidoutTravis N.. 2009. “Local Television and Newspaper Coverage of Political Advertising.” Political Communication26 (2): 119–136.
27.
FranzMichael M.RidoutTravis N.. 2007. “Does Political Advertising Persuade?” Political Behavior29: 465–491.
28.
FreedmanPaulFranzMichaelGoldsteinKenneth. 2004. “Campaign Advertising and Democratic Citizenship.” American Journal of Political Science48 (4): 723–741.
29.
GibsonJames L.CaldeiraGregory A.. 2007. “Supreme Court Nominations, Legitimacy Theory, and the American Public: A Dynamic Test of the Theory of Positivity Bias.” Legitimacy Theory, and the American Public: A Dynamic Test of the Theory of Positivity Bias (July 4, 2007).
30.
Gil de Zu´n˜igaHomeroJungNakwonValenzuelaSebasti´an. 2012. “Social Media Use for News and Individuals’ Social Capital, Civic Engagement and Political Participation.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication17 (3): 319–336.
31.
GimpelJames G.LeeFrances E.Pearson-MerkowtizShanna. 2008. “The Check is in the Mail: Interdistrict Funding Flows in Congressional Elections.” American Journal of Political Science52 (2): 373–394.
32.
GundersonAnnaWidnerKirstenMacdonaldMaggie. 2023. “Pursuing Change or Pursuing Credit? Litigation and Credit Claiming on Social Media.” Journal of Law and Courts12: 87.
33.
GuoChaoSaxtonGregory D.. 2020. The Quest for Attention: Nonprofit Advocacy in a Social Media Age. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
34.
HaselswerdtJakeFineJeffery A.. 2024. “Echo Chambers or Doom Scrolling? Homophily, Intensity, and Exposure to Elite Social Media Messages.” Political Research Quarterly77 (1): 199–212.
35.
IyengarShantoSimonAdam F.. 2000. “New Perspectives and Evidence on Political Communication and Campaign Effects.” Annual Review of Psychology51 (1): 149–169.
36.
JacksonRobert A.CarseyThomas M.. 2007. “US Senate Campaigns, Negative Advertising, and Voter Mobilization in the 1998 Midterm Election.” Electoral Studies26 (1): 180–195.
37.
JohannessonMagnusBlomquistGlenn C.BlumenscheinKarenJohanssonPer-OlovLiljasBengtO’ConorRichard M.. 1999. “Calibrating Hypothetical Willingness to Pay Responses.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty8: 21–23.
38.
KamCindy D.. 2012. “Risk Attitudes and Political Participation.” American Journal of Political Science56 (4): 817–836.
39.
KarpJ. A.BrockingtonD.. 2005. “Social Desirability and Response Validity: A Comparative Analysis of Overreporting Voter Turnout in Five Countries.” Journal of Politics67 (3): 825–840.
40.
KaslovskyJaclynRogowskiJon C.StoneAndrew R.. 2021. “Descriptive Representation and Public Support for Supreme Court Nominees.” Political Science Research and Methods9 (3): 583–598.
41.
KihlstromJohn F.. 2021. “Ecological Validity and “Ecological Validity.” Perspectives on Psychological Science16 (2): 466–471.
42.
KlarSamaraPistonSpencer. 2015. “The Influence of Competing Organisational Appeals on Individual Donations.” Journal of Public Policy35 (2): 171–194.
43.
KollmanKen. 1998. Outside Lobbying: Public Opinion and Interest Group Strategies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
44.
KrosnickJon A.BrannonLaura A.. 1993. “The Impact of the Gulf War on the Ingredients of Presidential Evaluations: Multidimensional Effects of Political Involvement.” American Political Science Review87 (4): 963–975.
45.
LeshnerGlennThorsonEsther. 2000. “Overreporting Voting: Campaign Media, Public Mood, and the Vote.” Political Communication17 (3): 263–278.
46.
LiHairongEdwardsSteven M.LeeJoo-Hyun. 2002. “Measuring the Intrusiveness of Advertisements: Scale Development and Validation.” Journal of Advertising31 (2): 37–47.
47.
MalloyLiam C.Pearson-MerkowitzShanna. 2016. “Going Positive: The Effects of Negative and Positive Advertising on Candidate Success and Voter Turnout.” Research & Politics3 (1): 2053168015625078.
48.
MasonLilliana. Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity. University of Chicago Press, 2018.
49.
McCoyScottEverardAndreaPolakPeterGallettaDennis F.. 2008. “An Experimental Study of Antecedents and Consequences of Online Ad Intrusiveness.” International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction24 (7): 672–699.
50.
MinguezAnaSeseFrancisco Javier. 2022. “Social Norms and Recognition in Social Fundraising Campaigns: The Moderating Role of Self-Construal.” Journal of Philanthropy and Marketing27 (1): e1706.
51.
NelsonThomas E.GarstJennifer. 2005. “Values-based Political Messages and Persuasion: Relationships Among Speaker, Recipient, and Evoked Values.” Political Psychology26 (4): 489–516.
52.
NullC.. 2011. “Warm Glow, Information, and Inefficient Charitable Giving.” Journal of Public Economics95: 455–465.
53.
PashkevichMaxDorai-RajSundarKellarMelanieZigmondDan. 2012. “Empowering Online Advertisements by Empowering Viewers with the Right to Choose: The Relative Effectiveness of Skippable Video Advertisements on YouTube.” Journal of Advertising Research52 (4): 451–457.
54.
PeytonKyleHuberGregory A.CoppockAlexander. 2022. “The Generalizability of Online Experiments Conducted During the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Journal of Experimental Political Science9 (3): 379–394.
55.
PriorMarkus. 2007. Post-broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
56.
RathjeSteveVan BavelJay J.Van Der LindenSander. 2021. “Out-Group Animosity Drives Engagement on Social Media.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences118 (26): e2024292118.
57.
SchmierbachMikeOeldorf-HirschAnne. 2012. “A Little Bird Told Me, So I Didn’t Believe it: Twitter, Credibility, and Issue Perceptions.” Communication Quarterly60 (3): 317–337.
58.
SettleJaime E.. 2018. Frenemies: How Social Media Polarizes America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
59.
SlothuusRuneDe VreeseClaes H.. 2010. “Political Parties, Motivated Reasoning, and Issue Framing Effects.” The Journal of Politics72 (3): 630–645.
60.
SolbergRorie SpillWaltenburgEric N.. 2006. “Why Do Interest Groups Engage the Judiciary? Policy Wishes and Structural Needs.” Social Science Quarterly87 (3): 558–572.
61.
SorokaStuart A.. 2014. Negativity in Democratic Politics: Causes and Consequences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
62.
TaberCharles S.LodgeMilton. 2006. “Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs.” American Journal of Political Science50 (3): 755–769.
63.
TajfelHenri. 1978. “Social Categorization, Social Identity and Social Comparison.” In Differentiation Between Social Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 61–76. London: Academic Press.
64.
ThorsonEstherOgnianovaEkaterinaCoyleJamesDentonFrank. 2000. “Negative Political Ads and Negative Citizen Orientations Toward Politics.” Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising22 (1): 13–40.
65.
ValentinoNicholas A.BeckmannMatthew N.BuhrThomas A.. 2001. “A Spiral of Cynicism for Some: The Contingent Effects of Campaign News Frames on Participation and Confidence in Government.” Political Communication18 (4): 347–367.
66.
ViningRichard L.Jr. 2011. “Grassroots Mobilization in the Digital Age: Interest Group Response to Supreme Court Nominees.” Political Research Quarterly64 (4): 790–802.
67.
WalkerMasonMatsaKaterina Eva. News Consumption across Social Media in 2021. Pew Research Center, 2021.
68.
WestermanDavidSpencePatric R.Van Der HeideBrandon. 2014. “Social Media as Information Source: Recency of Updates and Credibility of Information.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication19 (2): 171–183.
69.
WidnerKirstenMacdonaldMaggieGundersonAnna. 2022. “Lobbying in Public: Interest Group Activity on Social Media.”
70.
WrightJohn R.. 1996. Interest Groups and Congress: Lobbying, Contributions, and Influence. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
