Post on 30-Jan-2023
Running Head: AD TONE AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION 1
Ad Tone and Political Expression:
Information Efficacy and the Election’s Salience
David Lynn Painter, Ph.D.
Full Sail University
dpainter@fullsail.com
AD TONE AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION IN CAMPAIGN 2012
Paper submitted to the 2014 Meetings of the Association of
Educators in Journalism and Mass Communication
2
AD TONE AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION IN CAMPAIGN 2012
Abstract
This investigation uses a three- (positive, negative, or
combination) by two- (surveillance vs. expression) experimental
design (n = 436) to parse the influence of ad tone and political
expression on information efficacy and the salience of the 2012
election. The findings indicate the greatest gains in information
efficacy and the elections’ salience occurred among those viewing
a combination of positive and negative ads who engaged in
political expression after viewing the ads.
3
AD TONE AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION IN CAMPAIGN 2012
Ad Tone and Political Expression in Campaign 2012:
Information Efficacy and the Election’s Salience
The ascendance of digital communications technologies and
social media platforms notwithstanding, televised political
advertising remains “the nuclear weapon” of American politics and
the largest item in presidential campaign budgets (Nichols &
McChesney, 2012, p. 11). In the 2012 election, the two major
party candidates spent approximately $1 billion on campaign spots
and surpassed all preexisting fundraising, spending, and ad buy
records (Mason & Tanfani, 2012; Montanaro, 2012). The tone of the
2012 campaign ads was also distinctly negative, with 82% of the
Obama (D) campaigns’ 562,2664 ads and 91% of the Romney (R)
campaigns’ 223,584 ads focused on attacking the opponent rather
than promoting the sponsoring candidate (Kantar Media/CMAG,
2012).
While close electoral contests may spur negative campaign
tactics (Lau & Pomper, 2004), other content and individual-level
characteristics may influence the effects of political
advertising (for summary, see Kaid, 2004). Traditionally,
scholars have distinguished between issue and image ads (Kaid &
4
AD TONE AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION IN CAMPAIGN 2012
Johnston, 2001; Thorson, Christ, & Cawood, 1991), and research
suggests campaign spots focused on issues are more effective than
those focused on candidate image characteristics, regardless of
tone (Cho, 2013; Claiborn, 2012; Kaid, Chanslor, & Hovind, 1992;
Johnson-Cartee & Copeland, 1989; Kahn & Geer, 1994; Lau,
Sigelman, Heldman, & Babbit, 1999; Roddy & Garramone, 1988). A
wide variety of demographic, psychosocial, affective, and other
receiver characteristics that condition the effects of political
advertising on normative democratic goals such as civic
engagement have also been identified (Delli Carpinin, 2004; Kaid,
Fernandes, & Painter, 2011; Valentino, Traugott, Hutchings, 2002;
Krupnikov, 2012; West, 2014). The individual level of situational
involvement during ad exposure is of particular interest in this
study because of its influence on information processing and
electoral decision-making (Faber, Tims, & Schmitt, 1990, 1993;
Painter, 2013). Moreover, research on the mediating effects of
involvement suggests political advertising stimulates political
expression, which may increase situational involvement levels
when processing information (Cho, 2008).
5
AD TONE AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION IN CAMPAIGN 2012
The purpose of this investigation is to parse the influence
of ad tone and situational involvement on the effects of the two
major party presidential candidates’ 2012 campaign spots on two
individual-level variables significantly influencing civic
engagement. First, political information efficacy, or “one’s
level of confidence in his or her ability to participate (vote)”
in an informed manner, is positively related to young citizens’
rates of political participation (Kaid, McKinney, & Tedesco,
2007, p. 1096). Second, the salience of the election, or one’s
sense of urgency about participating in politics, is also
positively related to young citizens’ political participation
(Delli Carpini, 2000; Gans, 2004). Therefore, this investigation
tests the differential effects of exposure to positive, negative,
or a combination of positive and negative campaign ads on
political information efficacy and the election’s salience
between young citizens with high situational involvement levels
(expression) and low situational involvement levels
(surveillance).
Political Information Efficacy
6
AD TONE AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION IN CAMPAIGN 2012
Scholars have studied political efficacy, or the feeling that
individual political action does have, or can have, an impact
upon the political process, since the 1950s. In the late 1970s,
however, political scientists divided this construct into (1)
external political efficacy, which refers to “beliefs about the
responsiveness of governmental authorities and institutions to
citizen demands;” and (2) internal political efficacy, which
refers to “beliefs about one's own competence to understand and
to participate effectively in politics” (Nieme, Craig, & Mattei,
1991, 1407-1408). Although closely linked to internal political
efficacy, political information efficacy is a construct used to
measure the effects of campaign information on one’s level of
“confidence in his or her own political knowledge and its
sufficiency to engage the political process (to vote)” (Kaid,
McKinney, & Tedesco, 2007, p. 1096). While it may be appropriate
to measure internal political efficacy at any stage in the
process of the polity, measuring political information efficacy
is largely appropriate only during election cycles. Thus, Kaid et
al. have conducted a series of televised political advertising
studies examining the positive effects of exposure to campaign
7
AD TONE AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION IN CAMPAIGN 2012
spots on political information efficacy during election cycles
(Kaid, Fernandes, & Painter, 2011; Kaid, McKinney, & Tedesco,
2007; Kaid, Postelnicu, Landreville, Hyun, & LeGrange, 2007).
Salience of the Election: Public Agenda Building:
In addition to lower levels of political information
efficacy, young citizens also express less urgency about
participating in politics than other age groups due to their
relatively low perceptions of the election’s salience. Scholars
analyzing how the public develops its political agenda in the
1968 election proposed the agenda-setting hypothesis to explain
how the media may transfer issue salience to the public (McCombs
& Shaw, 1972). This seminal theory led scholars to ask, “Who sets
the media’s agenda?” and to examine the antecedents of media
agenda-setting, developing the construct of agenda-building
(Semetko, Blumler, Gurevitch & Weaver, 1991; Gilbert, Eyal,
McCombs, & Nicholas 1980; Turk, 1986). Research suggests that
campaign communications not only influence the media’s agenda,
but also may shape both media coverage and public opinion
(Kiousis, Mitrook, Wu, & Selzer, 2006; Kiousis & Strömbäck, 2010;
Schleuder, McCombs, & Wanta, 1991). When focused specifically on
8
AD TONE AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION IN CAMPAIGN 2012
televised political advertising, research also indicates campaign
spot ads significantly influence viewers’ perceptions of issue
salience and candidate characteristics (Ghorpade, 1986; Herrnson
& Patterson, 2000; West, 1993; Sulfaro, 2001).
Political Advertising Tone
Research on the content of televised presidential candidate
advertising indicates it has increasingly focused on issues (over
images) and become more opponent-negative and less candidate-
positive over the past several decades (Joslyn, 1980; Kaid, 2004;
Kern, 1989; West, 2014). Research on the effects of televised
advertising suggest exposure to campaign spots increases voters’
knowledge levels about the issues and candidates’ policy
positions (Atkin & Heald, 1976; Martinelli & Chaffee, 1995;
Hofstetter & Strand, 1983). Moreover, several studies suggest
voters may learn more issue information from television ads than
from the news or debates (Kern & Just, 1995; Just, Crigler, &
Wallach, 1990). In particular, negative advertisements and those
using emotional appeals have been linked with higher levels of
recall (Basil, Schooler, & Reeves, 1991; Johnson-Cartee &
Copeland, 1989; Lang, 1991; Newhagen & Reeves, 1991).
9
AD TONE AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION IN CAMPAIGN 2012
The evidence that negative ads have a deleterious effect on
the political system (i.e., depress turnout) is ambiguous. Some
research shows negative ads have no effect on political
participation (Garramone, Atkin, Pinkleton, & Cole, 1990); other
research suggests negative ads may increase turnout (Geer, 2006;
Goldstein & Freedman, 2002; Meirick & Nisbett, 2011), and still
other research indicates negative ads may reduce turnout by about
5% (Ansolabehere & Iyengar, 1995; Ansolabehere, Iyengar, & Simon,
1999; Ansolabehere, Iyengar, Simon, & Valentino, 1994). When
analyzing the impact of negative advertising in a broader
context, however, research indicates attack ads stimulate
homogenous political expression (Cho, 2013), crystallize
candidate selection (Krupinov, 2012), and elicit anxiety, which
triggers more elaborate information processing (Brader, 2006;
Marcus, MacKuen, Wolak, & Keele, 2006; Marcus, Neuman, & MacKuen,
2000).
Research on positive political advertisements indicates these
messages are also largely focused on issues rather than candidate
image traits (Geer, 1998; Kaid, 1999; Kaid & Johnston, 2001).
Additionally, research indicates positive ads exert significant
10
AD TONE AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION IN CAMPAIGN 2012
influences on viewers’ cognitions and attitudes (Cundy, 1986,
1990; Just, Crigler, &Wallach, 1990; Tedesco & Kaid, 2003; West,
1994). The results of survey research indicate positive issue
advertising is differentially more effective than negative
advertising in terms of viewers’ knowledge about the candidates’
distinct issue agendas (Claibourn, 2012). Moreover, positive
political ads stimulate heterogeneous political expression (Cho,
2012) and elicit feelings of hope and pride, which heighten
enthusiasm for preferred candidates (Brader, 2006).
Most voters are exposed to a wide variety of both positive
and negative campaign spots during presidential elections, but
there is no fully articulated rationale for this combination of
positive and negative ads exerting differentially greater
influence on individual-level civic engagement than solely
negative or solely positive ads. This study finds its place in
the literature by comparing the differential effects of ad tone
and political expression among those exposed to positive,
negative, or a combination of positive and negative ads. Although
no prior experimental research comparing the differential effects
of exposure to ads based on tone and political expression could
11
AD TONE AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION IN CAMPAIGN 2012
be located in the literature, previous research indicates the
combination of positive and negative campaign information exerts
significant influence on variables influencing normative
democratic outcomes such as increasing political participation
(Hyland, 1995).
When analyzing the purposes of presidential campaigns, Hart
(2004) argued they bring a sense of immediacy to electoral
decision-making and engage a dialectic process by sharpening the
differences among the candidate options. Positive ads serve a
vital function in this process by helping “demarcate the
difference in how opposing candidates rank goals and problems”
and providing voters with a set of expectations should the
candidate win the election (Claibourn, 2012, p. 65). Thus,
positive ads not only provide voters with a basis for judgment
based on issue priorities, but also with the information
necessary to hold incumbents accountable to those issue agendas
(p. 81).
While positive ads present viewers with the candidates’ issue
agendas and provide a basis for determining issue alignment and
level of positive candidate affect, negative ads crystallize
12
AD TONE AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION IN CAMPAIGN 2012
comparisons and elicit commitment in the candidate selection
stage of electoral decision-making process (Claibourn, 2012;
Krupinov, 2012). In this study, the inclusion of positive and
negative ads sponsored by both campaigns provides the most
robust, deliberative environment with the information needed to
form judgments, make comparisons, and select the preferred
candidate option. Thus, the first set of hypotheses predict main
effects of campaign ad tone:
H1: Those exposed to a combination of positive and negative
ads will report greater gains in political information
efficacy than will those exposed to solely positive or
negative ads.
H2: Those exposed to a combination of positive and negative
ads will report greater gains in perceptions of the
election’s salience than will those exposed to solely
positive or negative ads.
Situational Involvement: Expression versus Surveillance
One of the earliest findings among media scholars was that
interpersonal communication exerted greater effects on cognitions
and attitudes than did exposure to mediated sources (Lazarsfeld,
13
AD TONE AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION IN CAMPAIGN 2012
Berelson, & Gaudet, 1948; Katz & Lazarsfeld, 1955; Klapper,
1960). Although the average American household has at least two
television sets, most viewing occurs on the biggest screen in the
home and among other people, not on smaller screens in isolated
settings (Herr, 2007). Since most television viewing occurs in a
social context, viewers may also be in the company of someone
commenting upon, asking for, or expecting a response to the
advertisement.
With the convergence and diffusion of digital communications
technologies, opportunities for this type of political expression
in response to campaign spots have expanded exponentially.
Indeed, both the Obama and Romney campaign posted all their
television ads on YouTube before embedding them in their websites
and social media profiles. Moreover, watching television while
also using a mobile device has become the normal viewing practice
among media multi-taskers, and especially younger Americans
(Carrier, et al., 2009; Friedman, 2013). Thus, political
advertising may not only stimulate political talk in face-to-face
settings, but it may also stimulate political information seeking
and messaging through online sources and networks (Shah et al.,
14
AD TONE AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION IN CAMPAIGN 2012
2007). Research investigating this indirect, mediating influence
of political advertising on civic engagement indicates both
online and offline political talk significantly mediate the
effects of campaign spots (Shah, Cho, Eveland, & Kwak, 2005).
This political expression after exposure to political advertising
may act as a mediating variable by influencing individual
situational involvement levels when processing these campaign
spots (Shah et al., 2007).
This conceptualization of situational involvement is in line
with Pingree’s (2007) bi-directional communication model an
analysis of the ways in which messages affect their senders as
well as their receivers. According to this model, the expectation
of expression may be manipulated as an independent variable to
test its influence on cognitive, attitudinal, and behavioral
variables. This model of message effects suggests those who
expect to express themselves will pay closer attention to and
process messages more elaborately than will those who do not
expect to express themselves. In this way, situational
involvement may trigger the mechanism underlying the elaboration
likelihood model so that those who expect to express themselves
15
AD TONE AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION IN CAMPAIGN 2012
are motivated and have the ability to become more highly involved
than would those who do not have such an expectation. Thus, based
on this bi-directional communication model, two distinct main
effects of situational involvement are expected:
H3: Those in the expression condition will report greater
gains in political information efficacy than will those in
the surveillance condition.
H4: Those in the expression condition will report greater
gains in perceptions of the election’s salience than will
those in the surveillance condition.
Finally, to determine which of the six conditions reported
the greatest effects, the expectations from the first two sets of
hypotheses were combined to predict two interaction effects:
H5: Those exposed to a combination of positive and negative
ads in the expression condition will report the greatest
gains in political information efficacy.
H6: Those exposed to a combination of positive and negative
ads in the expression condition will report the greatest
gains in perceptions of the election’s salience.
Method
16
AD TONE AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION IN CAMPAIGN 2012
Participants and Design
A three- (ad tone) by-two (involvement) pretest-posttest
experimental design was used to test the hypotheses. Participants
were 436 students from a large southeastern research institution
who completed the project between October 19 and October 29,
2012, during the “hot phase” of the general election campaign.
Although all participants in this study were undergraduates, the
results of meta-analysis indicate there are no significant
differences between student and non-student samples when
investigating the effects of televised political advertising
(Benoit, Leshner, & Chattopadhyay, 2007).
Procedure and Manipulation
Participants in all conditions completed a pretest
questionnaire that included measurements of political information
efficacy and perceptions of the election’s salience. Upon
completion of the pretest questionnaire, participants received
video and written instructions specific to the low or the high
situational involvement (expression versus surveillance)
condition to which they were randomly assigned, and then they
were exposed to the stimuli. Qualtrics software randomized the
17
AD TONE AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION IN CAMPAIGN 2012
order of the stimuli ads in each condition and would not advance
until each embedded advertisement played in full, forcing
exposure to both the video instructions and the advertisements.
After exposure to the stimuli, low situational involvement
participants were directed to the posttest questionnaire that
included items reassessing political information efficacy and the
salience of the election.
During exposure to video and written directions,
participants in the high situational involvement condition were
instructed that they were required not only to view the ads, but
also to express themselves afterwards. Since participants were
viewing these ads online, they were instructed that Qualtrcs
software would verify that they had completed at least one
expressive activity after viewing the ads. These activities
included posting a comment on Facebook; “liking” a post or page on
Facebook; posting a political tweet on Twitter, forwarding
information or videos to another person; sending the candidate a
message or signing-up to receive campaign emails, texts, or
alerts on the campaign website. Participants in the high
interactivity condition were also instructed that they would be
18
AD TONE AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION IN CAMPAIGN 2012
required to enter an email address and a minimum one-sentence
comment about the information into the item on the posttest
questionnaire that forwarded the information to another person.
Participants were instructed that they could express anything
they wished in response to the ads; their comments could be
positive, negative, or neutral; but they must contain at least
five words and an email address of another person to whom their
comments and the videos of ads would be forwarded. After entering
their comments and an email address, high situational involvement
participants were then directed to the posttest questionnaire
reassessing political information efficacy and the salience of
the election.
Stimuli
A pretest with 100 undergraduates was used to rate the tone
of 22 of the most frequently aired candidate issue ads and the
three ads with the highest mean positive and negative ratings
from the Obama (D) and Romney (R) campaigns were used as stimuli
(Kantar Media/CMAG, 2013). Those in the solely positive ad
condition watched three candidate-positive issue ads from both
the Obama and Romney campaigns. Those in the solely negative
19
AD TONE AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION IN CAMPAIGN 2012
condition watched three opponent-negative issue ads sponsored by
the Obama and Romney campaigns. Those in the combination of
positive and negative ads condition watched a randomly selected
combination of ads used in the positive and negative conditions
with equal time devoted to tone and candidate sponsorship. All
three conditions watched six ads for 240 seconds.
Dependent Variable Measurement
Political Information Efficacy. Participants’ level of political
information efficacy was measured in both the pretest and
posttest questionnaires. As in previous studies (Kaid, McKinney,
& Tedesco, 2007; Tedesco, 2007), four items from the American
National Election Study (ANES, 2009) survey were used to
construct the political information efficacy index. These items
included: (a) I consider myself well qualified to participate in
politics, (b) I think I am better informed about politics and
government than most people, (c) I feel that I have a pretty good
understanding of the important political issues facing our
country today, and (d) If a friend asked me about Florida’s 2010
midterm elections, I feel I would have enough information to help
my friend figure out who to vote for. Participants rated their
20
AD TONE AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION IN CAMPAIGN 2012
level of agreement with each statement on a five-point Likert
scale. The Cronbach’s α score for the scale was 0.88 in the
pretest and 0.90 in the posttest.
Salience of the Election. In both the pretest and the posttest,
participants were asked to state how salient they perceived the
2012 presidential election using six items on a five-point Likert
scale from prior research (Zaichowsky, 1985). The items included:
the upcoming election has prominent value in society; the
upcoming election has significant value in society; the upcoming
election has important value in society; the upcoming election is
well known in society; the upcoming election has fundamental
value in society; and I am concerned about the upcoming election.
The Cronbach’s α for the scale was 0.93 in the pretest and 0.87
in the posttest.
Results
Participant Descriptives and Manipulation Check
The participants were 43% male and 57% female, with an
average age of 21 years. Forty-one percent of participants were
Democrats, 37% Republicans, and 22% Independents. Participants
were 64% White, 13% African American, 13% Hispanic, and 10%
21
AD TONE AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION IN CAMPAIGN 2012
another ethnicity. The participants were randomly assigned to one
of the six conditions and completed the project online. Overall,
34% of participants were randomly assigned to the positive ad
condition, 32% to the negative ad condition, and 34% to the
combination of negative and positive ads condition. Additionally,
52% of participants were randomly assigned to the low involvement
(surveillance) condition and 48% to the high involvement
(expression) condition. There were no significant differences in
demographic or political party affiliation variables among any of
the six conditions (p > .50).
The manipulation was successful because each of the 211
participants in the high involvement or expression condition
provided an email address and a minimum five-word response after
watching the ads. Alternately, the 225 participants in the low
involvement or surveillance condition had no expectation of
expression and were unable to express any response to the ads to
another person before completing the posttest questionnaire.
Main Effect of Ad Tone: Positive, Negative, and Combination
The first group of hypotheses investigated the main effect
of ad tone on participant’s levels of political information
22
AD TONE AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION IN CAMPAIGN 2012
efficacy and perceptions of the election’s salience. First, to
verify exposure to all stimuli exerted significant influence on
viewers’ political information efficacy, participants’ pretest
and posttest scores were compared. The results of a paired-
samples t-test revealed participants’ posttest political
information efficacy levels (M = 13.65, SD = 3.95) were higher
than their pretest levels (M = 12.84, SD = 3.64), and this
difference was significant, t(435) = -6.53, p < .01. This
comparison was repeated to determine how exposure to the stimuli
affected participants’ perceptions of the salience of the
election. The results of a paired-samples t-test revealed
participants’ posttest perceptions of the election’s salience (M
= 37.52, SD = 5.47) were higher than their pretest perceptions
(M = 35.23, SD = 7.43), and this difference was also
significant, t(435) = -7.23, p < 0.01. Next, participants’
pretest political information efficacy scores were subtracted
from their posttest scores to create a PIE Gain variable. This
process was also executed across participants’ pretest and
posttest salience of the election scores to create a Salience
Gain variable. Once these variables were calculated, the main
23
AD TONE AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION IN CAMPAIGN 2012
effects of online information source on gains in political
information efficacy and perceptions of the election’s salience
were investigated.
The first hypothesis predicted that exposure to the
combination of positive and negative ads would result in greater
gains in political information efficacy than would exposure to
solely positive or solely negative ads. As shown in the first row
of Table One, the results of an analysis of variance revealed a
significant main effect of ad tone, F(2, 435) = 19.94, p < .01.
Specifically, the results of a post hoc comparison using the
Tukey HSD test revealed gains in political information efficacy
among those exposed to the combination of positive and negative
ads (M = 1.76, SD = 3.60) were significantly greater than among
those exposed to positive ads (M = 0.19, SD = 1.89) or negative
ads (M = 0.53, SD = 1.62), but that the differences between
positive and negative ads were not significant, p > .4. Thus,
hypothesis one was strongly supported.
The second hypothesis predicted those exposed to the
combination of positive and negative ads would report greater
gains in the salience of the election than would those exposed to
24
AD TONE AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION IN CAMPAIGN 2012
solely positive or negative ads. As shown in the second row of
Table One, the results of an analysis of variance revealed a
significant main effect of information source on gains in the
election’s salience, F(2, 435) = 18.61, p < 0.01. Specifically,
the results of a post hoc comparison using the Tukey HSD test
revealed gains in the salience of the election among those
exposed to a combination of positive and negative ads (M = 4.85,
SD = 4.97) were significantly greater than among those exposed to
positive ads (M = 1.25, SD = 3.84) or negative ads (M = 0.75, SD
= 1.35), but the difference between positive and negative ads was
not significant, p > .7. Thus, hypothesis two was strongly
supported.
Main Effect of Involvement: Expression versus Surveillance
The second group of hypotheses investigated the main effect
of involvement on participants’ levels of political information
efficacy and perceptions of the election’s salience. The third
hypothesis predicted those in the expression condition would
report greater gains in political information efficacy than would
those in the surveillance condition. As shown in the first row of
Table Two, the results of an analysis of variance revealed a
25
AD TONE AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION IN CAMPAIGN 2012
significant effect of involvement on political information
efficacy, F(1. 434) = 11.21, p < 0.01. Specifically, the gains in
political information efficacy among those in the expression
condition (M = 1.24, SD = 3.44) were significantly greater than
among those in the surveillance condition (M = 0.41, SD = 1.03).
Thus, hypothesis three was strongly supported.
The fourth hypothesis predicted those in the expression
condition would report greater gains in perceptions of the
election’s salience than would those in the surveillance
condition. As shown in the second row of Table 2, the results of
an analysis of variance revealed a significant effect of
involvement on the salience of the election, F(1. 434) = 25.24, p
< 0.01. Specifically, perceptions of the salience of the election
were significantly higher among those in the expression condition
(M = 3.81, SD = 7.81) than among those in the surveillance
condition (M = 0.78, SD = 2.27). Thus, hypothesis four was
strongly supported.
Interaction Effects
Finally, in an attempt to specify which of the six
conditions reported the greatest gains in political information
26
AD TONE AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION IN CAMPAIGN 2012
efficacy and perceptions of the salience of the election,
significant interaction effects between online information source
and situational involvement were predicted. Hypothesis Five
predicted those exposed to a combination of positive and negative
ads in the expression condition would report the greatest gains
in political information efficacy. The results of a factorial
ANOVA revealed the interaction between ad tone and situational
involvement was significant, F(2, 435) = 23.07, p < 0.01. As
shown in the first row of Table 3, an analysis of simple effects
revealed participants in the expression condition who were
exposed to a combination of positive and negative ads reported
the greatest gains in political information efficacy. Therefore,
these results provide strong support for Hypothesis Five.
Hypothesis Six investigated the interaction between ad tone
and involvement on participants’ perceptions of the salience of
the election. Specifically, those exposed to a combination of
positive and negative ads in the expression condition were
expected to report the greatest gains in perceptions of the
salience of the election. A factorial ANOVA revealed a
significant interaction between ad tone and involvement on
27
AD TONE AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION IN CAMPAIGN 2012
perceptions of the election’s salience, F(2, 435) = 25.11, p <
0.01. As shown in the second row of Table 3, an analysis of
simple effects revealed those in the expression condition exposed
to a combination of positive and negative ads reported the
greatest gains in salience of the election Thus, these results
provide strong support for Hypothesis Six.
Discussion
It is important to remember the act of voting requires
making two decisions: first, whether or not to participate, and
second, which candidates to support. The first decision is
critically important in normative democratic terms because young
citizens who fail to develop the habit of participating in
politics are much more likely to remain disengaged throughout
their lifetime than those who develop regular participatory
habits early in life (Putnam, 2000). Thus, analyzing how ad tone
and political expression or situational involvement, influence
young citizens’ information efficacy and perceptions of the
election’s salience may provide insights into ways campaigns may
invoke a sense of confidence and urgency about participating in
politics. Moreover, the mediating effects of expression may be
28
AD TONE AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION IN CAMPAIGN 2012
measured and compared across ad types, testing and specifying the
O-S-R-O-R and bi-directional communication models.
This investigation’s findings failed to support the notion
that negative ads have a deleterious effect on viewer’s political
information efficacy or perceptions of the elections’ salience.
Instead, a combination of positive and negative ads were found to
be a powerful tool for not only increasing younger voters’
confidence in their information levels, but also for persuading
them of the importance of their vote in particular, especially
among those who engage in political expression. Contrary to
contemporary campaign wisdom holding that negative ads work while
positive ads do not, the results of this study indicate negative
ads’ influence on normative democratic values are dependent on
the inclusion of some positive ads as well. In practical terms,
these findings suggest the use of both positive and negative ads
is critically important for political campaigns in their efforts
to connect with young voters, particularly for enhancing
information efficacy and election salience. While those with
higher levels of political information efficacy are more likely
to participate in politics than those with lower levels (Kenski &
29
AD TONE AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION IN CAMPAIGN 2012
Stroud, 2006), this effect may not translate into voter turnout
should individuals fail to perceive the importance of their
participation in the election. Stemming from a belief that
politics has personal relevance, this sense of urgency about
voting is a necessary component of motivating participation in
the political process (Franklin, 2001).
The findings that suggest political expression after
exposure to the advertising stimuli significantly influenced both
political information efficacy levels and perceptions of the
election’s salience extend research on the indirect and mediating
effects of political advertising. Put simply, this line of
research indicates campaign advertising, especially during close
races and in competitive markets, provides citizens with a robust
information environment and is positively related to citizens’
information-seeking and expressive behaviors (Cho, et al., 2009;
Shah, et al., 2007). Further, this research suggests engagement
in political expression may activate citizens’ elaboration on
political information, which improves their ability to apply that
information to decision making (Nekmat, 2012).
30
AD TONE AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION IN CAMPAIGN 2012
In this particular study, the positive effect of political
expression was significantly greater among those exposed to a
combination of positive and negative ads than among those exposed
to solely positive or solely negative ads. This result may be
partly explained due to the wider variety of information provided
in a combination of candidate-positive and opponent-negative ads
that present both pro and con arguments for each of the two major
party nominees. The ads used in this experiment were all issue-
based, regardless of ad tone, to control for the issue/image
dichotomy in ad content and to reflect the increasingly issue-
focus of televised political advertising. By presenting viewers
with both positive and negative information about the issue
positions of both candidates, and then compelling them to express
themselves, participants in this condition participated in a more
robust deliberative process that positively mediated the ads’
effects on their information efficacy levels and perceptions of
the election’s salience. Since these participants were not
exposed to a series of solely positive or solely negative ads,
the shifts in ad tone may also have heightened attention to the
information and activated more elaborative information
31
AD TONE AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION IN CAMPAIGN 2012
processing. Further, the information in the combination of
positive and negative ads presents a wider variety of viewpoints
that may enhance the deliberative nature of the experience and
make viewers’ feel more confident in their ability to cast an
informed vote and more urgency about participating, important
normative goals (Gutmann & Thompson, 1996). Indeed, previous
research indicated there was a significant, positive relationship
between ad exposure and political expression (Cho, et al., 2009;
Shah, et al., 2007), as well as between ad exposure and normative
democratic goals (Kaid, Fernandes, & Painter, 2011; Kaid,
McKinney, & Tedesco, 2007; Kaid et al., 2007). This
investigation, on the other hand, is one of the first
experimental studies to parse the influence of ad tone and to
analyze political expression as a mediating variable influencing
normative democratic values such as political information
efficacy and perceptions of the election’s salience.
Although previous research indicated political expression
triggered reasoning processes that mediated the effects of
information from a variety of sources (Kim, 2006; Shah, Cho,
Eveland, & Kwak, 2005; Shah, et al, 2007), expression only
32
AD TONE AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION IN CAMPAIGN 2012
exerted significant, positive influences among those exposed to a
combination of positive and negative ads in this investigation.
Indeed, as shown in Figures One and Two, political expression did
not exert a significant, positive influence on efficacy or
saliency among those exposed to solely positive or solely
negative ads. Indeed, ad tone failed to exert significant
influence on information efficacy among those in the
surveillance, or low involvement condition.
Since these findings parse the conditions under which
expression mediates information effects after exposure to
political advertising, it has important implications for both the
bi-directional communication and O-S-R-O-R models. As with all
experimental inquiries, however, this investigation has important
limitations that must be noted. First, the participants and the
focus of this investigation were limited to individuals between
the ages of 18 and 24. Therefore, the conclusions may not
necessarily be generalized to other age segments of the
population, although metanalysis suggest the differences between
student and non-student samples are not significant (Benoit,
Leshner, & Chattopadhyay, 2007). Another potential limitation is
33
AD TONE AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION IN CAMPAIGN 2012
the manipulation of situational involvement by instructing
participants to expect to express themselves prior to exposure to
the stimulus, and then compelling expression after the exposure.
As with all experimental investigations, this process was
artificial, but it allowed for the parsing of ad tone,
situational involvement, and interaction effects in a manner that
tested theoretical propositions and specified the direction of
cause and effect.
34
AD TONE AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION IN CAMPAIGN 2012
Bibliography
American National Election Study. (2009). 2008-2009 Panel study
questionnaires. Retrieved October 23, 2009, from
http://www.electionstudies.org/studypages/2008_2009panel/ane
s2008_2009
panel_qnaire.pdf
Ansolabehere, S., & Iyengar, S. (1995). Going negative: How attack ads
shrink and polarize the
electorate. New York, NY: Free Press.
Ansolabehere, S., Iyengar, S., & Simon, A. (1999). Replicating
experiments using aggregate and
survey data: The case of negative advertising and turnout.
American Political Science
Review, 93, 901–909.
Ansolabehere, S., Iyengar, S., Simon, A., & Valentino, N. (1994).
Does attack advertising
demobilize the electorate? American Political Science Review, 88,
829–838.
Atkin, C. K., Bowen, L., Nayman, O. B., & Sheinkopf, K. G. (1973). Quality versus quantity in
35
AD TONE AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION IN CAMPAIGN 2012
televised political ads. Public Opinion Quarterly, 37, 209–224.
Atkin, C., & Heald, G. (1976). Effects of political advertising.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 40, 216–228.
Basil, M., Schooler, C., & Reeves, B. (1991). Positive and
negative political advertising:
Effectiveness of ads and perceptions of candidates. In F.
Biocca (Ed.), Television and
political advertising, Volume 1(pp. 245–262). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Benoit, W.L., Leshner, G.M., & Chattopdhyay, S. (2007). A meta-
analysis of political advertising. Human Communication, 10(4),
507-522.
Carrier, L.M., Cheever, N.A., Rosen, L.D., Benitez, S., & Chang,
J. (2009). Multitasking across generations: Multitasking
choices and difficulty ratings in three generations of
Americans. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 483-489.
Cho, J. (2008). Political ads and citizen communication.
Communication Research, 39(5), p. 423-451.
36
AD TONE AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION IN CAMPAIGN 2012
Cho, J., Shah, D.V., McLeod, J.M., McLeod, D.M., Scholl, R.M., & Gottlieb, M.R. (2009).
Campaigns, reflection, and deliberation: Advancing an O-S-R-O-R model of
communication effects. Communication Theory, 19, 66-88.
Cho, J. (2013). Campaign tone, political affect, and
communicative engagement. Journal of
Communication, 63, 1130-1152.
Claibourn, M.P. (2012). Hearing campaign appeals: the
accountability implications of
presidential campaign tone. Political Communication, 29, 64-85.
Cundy, D. T. (1986). Political commercials and candidate image:
The effects can be substantial.
In L. L. Kaid, D. Nimmo, & K. R. Sanders (Eds.), New
perspectives on political
advertising (pp. 210–234). Carbondale: Southern Illinois
University Press.
Cundy, D. T. (1990). Image formation, the low involvement voter,
and televised political
advertising. Political Communication and Persuasion, 7, 41–59.
37
AD TONE AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION IN CAMPAIGN 2012
Delli Carpini, M. X. (2000). Gen.com: Youth, civic engagement, and the new information
environment. Political Communication, 17, 341-349.
Delli Caprini, M.X. (2004). Mediating democratic engagement: The
impact of communications
on citizens’ involvement in political and civic life. In In
L. L. Kaid, (Ed.), Handbook of
political communication research, (pp. 395-434). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Faber, R. J., Tims, A. R., & Schmitt, K. (1993). Negative
political advertising and voter intent: The role of
involvement and alternative information sources. Journal of
Advertising, 22(4), p. 67-76.
Freidman, W. (2013). TV still tops, but multiscreen viewing
commonplace. Media Daily News. Retrieved from
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/192091/tv-
still-tops-but-multiscreen-viewing-commonplace.html?
edition=55973#ixzz2JN3ajCQa
Gans, C. (2004). Low voter turnout and the decline of American civic participation. In M.
38
AD TONE AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION IN CAMPAIGN 2012
S. McKinney. L. L. Kaid, D. G. Bystrom, & D. B. Carlin (Eds.), Communicating
politics: Engaging the public in democratic life (pp. 80-85). New York: Peter Lang.
Garramone, G. M., Atkin, C. K., Pinkleton, B. E.,&Cole, R. T.
(1990). Effects of negative
political advertising on the political process. Journal of &
Electronic Media, 34, 299–
311.
Geer, J. G. (1998). Campaigns, party competition, and political
advertising. In J. G. Geer (Ed.),
Politicians and party politics (pp. 186–217). Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Geer, J.G. (2006). In Defense of Negativity: Attack Ads in
Presidential Campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ghorpade, S. (1986). Agenda setting: A test of advertising’s neglected function. Journal
of Advertising Research, 26, 23-27.
Gilbert, S., Eyal, C., McCombs, M., & Nicholas, D. (1980). The
state of the union address and
the press agenda. Journalism Quarterly, 57, 584-588.
39
AD TONE AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION IN CAMPAIGN 2012
Goldstein, K., & Freedman, P. (2002). Campaign advertising and
voter turnout: new evidence for
a stimulation effect. Journal of Politics, 64(3), 721-740.
Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Hart, R. (2002). Campaign talk: Why elections are good for us. Princeton
University Press:
Princeton, NJ.
Hernson, P.S., & Patterson, K.D. (2000). Agenda setting and campaign
advertising in congressional elections. In J.A. Thurber, C. J. Nelson, & D. A. Dulio,
(Eds.), Crowded Airwaves: Campaign advertising in elections (pp. 96-112). Washington,
D.C.: The Brookings Institution.
Herr, N. (2007). Television & health. Retrieved from
www.csun.edu/science/health/docs/tv&health.htmlcd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Hofstetter, C. R., &Strand, P. J. (1983). Mass media and
political issue perceptions. Journal of Broadcasting, 27, 345–358.
40
AD TONE AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION IN CAMPAIGN 2012
Huckfeldt, R., Sprague, J., & Levine, J. (2000). The dynamic of
collective deliberation in the 1996 election: Campaign
effects on accessibility, certainty, and accuracy. American
Political Science Review, 94, 641–651.
Hyland, J.L. (1995). Democratic theory: The philosophical foundations. New
York: Manchester University Press.
Johnson-Cartee, K. S., & Copeland, G. (1989). Southern voters’
reaction to negative political ads
in 1986 election. Journalism Quarterly, 66, 888–893, 986.
Joslyn, R. A. (1980). The content of political spot ads. Journalism
Quarterly, 57, 92–98.
Just, M. R., Crigler, A. N., Alger, D. E., Cook, T. E., Kern, M.,
& West, D. M. (1996). Crosstalk: Citizens, candidates, and the media in a
presidential campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Just, M., Crigler, A., &Wallach, L. (1990). Thirty seconds or
thirty minutes: What viewers learn
from spot advertisements and candidate debates. Journal of
Communication, 40, 120–
133.
41
AD TONE AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION IN CAMPAIGN 2012
Kahn, K.F., & Geer, J.G. (1994). Creating impressions: An
experimental investigation of
political advertising on television. Political Behavior, 16, 93-
116.
Kaid, L. L. (1999). Political advertising: A summary of research findings. In B. Newman (Ed.),
The handbook of political marketing (pp. 423–438). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
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. Gerstl´e, &
K. Sanders (Eds.), Mediated
politics in two cultures: Presidential campaigning in the
United States and France (pp. 247–260). New York: Praeger.
Kaid, L. L. (2004). Political advertising. In Lynda Lee Kaid (Ed.), Handbook of Political
Communication (pp. 155-202). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kaid, L.L., Chanslor, M., & Hovind, M. (1992). The influence of
program and
commercial type on political advertising effectiveness.
Journal of Broadcasting
42
AD TONE AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION IN CAMPAIGN 2012
and Electronic Media, 36, 303-320.
Kaid, L. L., Fernandes, J., & Painter, D. (2011). Effects of political advertising in the
2008 presidential campaign. American Behavioral Scientist, 55 (4), 437-456.
Kaid, L. L.,& Johnston, A. (2001). Videostyle in presidential campaigns.Westport, CT:
Praeger/Greenwood.
Kaid, L.L., McKinney, M.S., & Tedesco, J.C. (2007). Introduction:Political information
efficacy and young voters. American Behavioral Scientist, 50, 1093-1111.
Kaid, L.L., Postelnicu, M., Landreville, K., Yun, H.J., &
LeGrange, A.G. (2007). The effects of
political advertising on young voters’ cynicism and
efficacy. American Behavioral Scientist, 50(9), 1137-1151.
Kantar Media/CMAG. (2012, November 14). Mad money: TV ads in the
2012 presidential
campaign. The Washington Post. Retrieved from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
srv/special/politics/track-presidential-campaign-ads-2012/
43
AD TONE AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION IN CAMPAIGN 2012
Kantar UK Insights (2012, December 20). US election advertising
war. Retrieved from
http://uk.kantar.com/tech/tv/why-mitt-romney-lost-the-
advertising-war-to-president-obama/
Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. (1955). Personal influence: The part played by people in the
flow of mass communications. Glencoe, Ill: Free Press.
Kern, M., & Just, M. (1995). The focus group method, political
advertising, campaign news, and
the construction of candidate images. Political Communication,
12, 127–145.
Kern, M. (1989). 30-second politics: Political advertising in
the eighties. New York: Praeger.
Kim, J.Y., Painter, D.L., & Miles, M.A. (2013). Campaign
agenda-building online: Emotions, evaluations, and
important perceptions. Journal of Information Technology &
Politics, 10(3), 326-340.
Kiousis, S., Mitrook, M., Wu, X., & Seltzer, T. (2006).
First- and second-level agenda-building and agenda-
setting effects: Exploring the linkages among candidate
news releases, media coverage, and public opinion
44
AD TONE AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION IN CAMPAIGN 2012
during the 2002 Florida gubernatorial election. Journal
of Public Relations Research, 18, 265–285.
Kiousis, S., & Strömbäck, J. (2010). The White House and
Public Relations: Examining the Linkages between
Presidential Communications and Public Opinion. Public
Relations Review, 36, 7-14.
Klapper, J. T. (1963). Mass communication research: An old road resurveyed. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 27, 515–527.
Krupnikov, Y. (2012). Negative advertising and voter choice: The
role of ads in candidate
selection. Political Communication, 29, 387-413.
Lang, A. (1991). Emotion, formal features, and memory for
televised political advertisements. In
F. Biocca (Ed.), Television and political advertising, Volume 1 (pp.
221–243). Hillsdale,
NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.
Lau, R. L., & Pomper, G.M. (2004). Negative campaigning: An analysis of U.S. Senate elections.
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
45
AD TONE AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION IN CAMPAIGN 2012
Lau, R.L., Sigelman, L., Heidman, C., & Babbitt, P. (1999). The
effects of negative political advertisements: A meta-analytic
assessment. The American Political Science Review, 93, 851-
875.
Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B.R., & Gaudet, H. (1948). The
people's choice. New York: Columbia University Press.
Leshner, G., & Thorson, E. (2000). Overreporting voting: Campaign
media, public mood, and the vote. Political Communication, 17,
263-278.
Markus, H., & Zajonc, R. B. (1985). The cognitive perspective in
social psychology. In
G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology
(3rd ed., pp.
137–229). New York: Random House.
Martinelli, K. A., & Chaffee, S. H. (1995). Measuring new-voter learning via three channels of
political information. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 72, 18–32.
McCombs, M.E., & Shaw, D.L. (1972). The agenda-setting function
of mass media. The Public
46
AD TONE AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION IN CAMPAIGN 2012
Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176-187.
Meirick, P.C., & Nisbett, G.S. (2011). I approve this message:
Effects of sponsorship, ad tone,
and reactance in 2008 presidential advertising. Mass
Communication and Society, 14, 666-689.
Montanaro, D. (2012, November 1). Ad spending closes in on $1
billion. NBC News,
Retrieved from
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/01/14855780-ad-
spending-closes-in-on-1-billion?lite
Newhagen, J. E., & Reeves, B. (1991). Emotion and memory
responses for negative political
advertising: A study of television commercials used in the
1988 presidential election. In
F. Biocca (Ed.), Television and political advertising, Volume 1 (pp.
197–220). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Nichols, J., & McChesney, R.W. (2012, February 6). After
‘Citizens United’ – The attack of the super PACS. Nation.
Retrieved from
47
AD TONE AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION IN CAMPAIGN 2012
http://www.thenation.com/article/165733/after-citizens-
united-attack-super-pacs
Niemi, R. G., Craig, S. C., & Mattei, F. (1991). Measuring internal political efficacy in
the1988 National Election Study. American Political Science Review, 85, 1407-
1413.
Painter, D. L. (2013). Collateral damage: Involvement and the effects of negative super
pac advertising.American Behavioral Scientist, doi:
10.1177/0002764213506210
Painter, D.L., Fernandes, J., Mahone, J., & Al Nashmi, E.
(2014). Social network sites and
Interactivity: Differential expression effects in campaign
2012. In J.A. Hendricks, &
D. Schill (Eds.), Presidential Campaigning and Social Media. Oxford
University
Press: New York. Publication forthcoming.
Page, B. I. (1996). Who deliberates? Mass media in modern democracy.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pan, Z., Shen, L., Paek, H., & Sun, Y. (2006). Mobilizing
political talk in a presidential campaign: An examination of
48
AD TONE AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION IN CAMPAIGN 2012
campaign effects in a deliberative framework. Communication
Research, 33, 315–345.
Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1981) Issue involvement as a
moderator of the effects of advertising content and context.
Advances in Consumer Research, 8(1), 20-24.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion:
Central and peripheral
routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Pingree, R. J. (2007). How messages affect their senders: A more
general model of message effects and implications for
deliberation. Communication Theory, 17, 439-461.
Roddy, B. L., & Garramone, G. M. (1988). Appeals and strategies
of negative political
advertising. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 32, 415–427.
Schleuder, J., McCombs, M., & Wanta, W. (1991). Inside the
agenda-setting process: How political advertising and
TV news prime viewers to think about issues and
candidates. In F. Biocca (Ed.), Television and political
advertising 1: Psychological processes (pp. 263-310). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
49
AD TONE AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION IN CAMPAIGN 2012
Semetko, H., Blumler, J., Gurevitch, M. & Weaver, D. (1991). The
Formation of Campaign
Agendas: A Comparative Analysis of Party and Media Roles in Recent American
and
British Elections. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Shah, D. V., Cho, J., Eveland, W. P. Jr., & Kwak, N. (2005). Information and expression
in a digital age: Modeling Internet effects on civic participation. Communication
Research, 32, 531–565.
Shah, D. V., Cho, J., Nah, S., Gotlieb, M. R., Hwang, H., Lee,
N., Scholl, R.M., & McLeod, D.M. (2007). Campaign ads,
online messaging, and participation: Extending the
communication mediation model. Journal of Communication, 57, 676–
703.
Sulfaro, V. A. (2001). Political advertisements and decision-making shortcuts in the 2000
election. Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, 22, 80–99.
Surlin, S. H., & Gordon, T. F. (1976). Selective exposure and retention of political advertising.
Journal of Advertising, 5, 32–44.
Tedesco, J. C., & Kaid, L. L. (2003). Style and effects of the
50
AD TONE AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION IN CAMPAIGN 2012
Bush and Gore spots. In L. L. Kaid,
J. C.Tedesco, D. Bystrom, & M. S. McKinney (Eds.), The
millennium election:
Communication in the 2000 campaigns. Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield.
Turk, J.V. (1985). Information subsidies and influence. Public
Relations Review, 11(3), 1-14.
Weaver, D., & Drew, D. (2001). Voter learning and interest in the
2000 presidential election:
Did the media matter? Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 78(4), 787–798.
West, D. M. (1993). Air wars: Television advertising in election campaigns, 1952–1992.
Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.
West, D. (1994). Political advertising and news coverage in the
1992 California U.S. Senate campaigns. The Journal of Politics, 56,
1053–1075.
West, D. M. (2014). Air wars: Television advertising and social media in election
campaigns 1952-2012. (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press/Sage.
51
AD TONE AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION IN CAMPAIGN 2012
Zaichowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement
construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 341, 352.
Zhao, X., & Chaffee, S. M. (1995). Campaign advertisements versustelevision news as sources
of political issue information. Public Opinion Quarterly, 59, 41–65.
Table 1: Political Information Efficacy and Salience Gains by Ad TonePositive AdsN = 150
Negative AdsN = 145
Positive & Negative AdsN = 141
F - value df p
Information
Efficacy
0.19 0.53 1.76 19.94 2 0.0
0
Salience 1.25 0.74 4.85 18.61 2 0.0
0
Table 2: Political Information Efficacy and Salience Gains by Involvement LevelSurveillanceN = 225
ExpressionN = 211
F - value df p
Information
Efficacy
0.41 1.24 11.21 1 0.01
Salience 0.78 3.81 25.24 1 0.01
52
AD TONE AND POLITICAL EXPRESSION IN CAMPAIGN 2012
Table 3: Political information efficacy and salience Gains by ad tone and involvement Positive
AdsPositive and
NegativeAds
NegativeAds
Expression
Surveillance
Expression
Surveillance
Expression
Surveillance
PIE Change 0.03 0.44 3.48* 0.32 0.47 0.62SalienceChange 2.10 0.00 9.81* 0.98 0.11 1.06
*Interaction effect significant, p < .01
53